Establishment of the Fort Ross-Seaview Viticultural Area, 77684-77696 [2011-32016]
Download as PDF
77684
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Drafting Information
Karen A. Thornton of the Regulations
and Rulings Division drafted this notice.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter
I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
2. Subpart C is amended by adding
§ 9.223 to read as follows:
■
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 9.223
Coombsville.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural
area described in this section is
‘‘Coombsville’’. For purposes of part 4 of
this chapter, ‘‘Coombsville’’ is a term of
viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The two United
States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale
topographic maps used to determine the
boundary of the Coombsville
viticultural area are titled:
(1) Mt. George Quadrangle, California,
1951, Photoinspected 1973; and
(2) Napa Quadrangle, California-Napa
Co., 1951, Photorevised 1980.
(c) Boundary. The Coombsville
viticultural area is located in Napa
County, California. The boundary of the
Coombsville viticultural area is as
described below:
(1) The beginning point is on the Mt.
George map at the 1,877-foot peak of Mt.
George, section 29, T6N/R3W. From the
beginning point, proceed southeast in a
straight line for 0.4 mile to the
intersection of the 1,400-foot elevation
line and an unnamed intermittent creek
that feeds northeast into Leonia Lakes,
section 29, T6N/R3W; then
(2) Proceed east-southeast in a straight
line for 0.45 mile to the intersection of
the 1,380-foot elevation line and an
unnamed, unimproved dirt road, and
then continue in the same straight line
to the section 29 east boundary line,
T6N/R3W; then
(3) Proceed south-southeast in a
straight line for 0.6 mile to the unnamed
1,804-foot elevation point in the
northwest quadrant of section 33, T6N/
R3W; then
(4) Proceed south-southwest in a
straight line for 1 mile, passing over the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
marked 1,775-foot elevation point, to
the intersection of the T6N and T5N
common line and the 1,600-foot
elevation line; then
(5) Proceed south-southeast in a
straight line for 1.1 miles to the 1,480foot elevation point along the section 9
north boundary line, T5N/R3W; then
(6) Proceed south-southwest in a
straight line for 1.3 miles to the 1,351foot elevation point, section 16, T5N/
R3W; then
(7) Proceed south-southwest in a
straight line for 1.5 miles to the
intersection with two unimproved dirt
roads and the 1,360-foot elevation line
in Kreuse Canyon at the headwaters of
the intermittent Kreuse Creek, northeast
of Sugarloaf, section 20, T5N/R3W; then
(8) Proceed northwest in a straight
line for 1.95 miles to the 90-degree turn
of Imola Avenue at the 136-foot
elevation point, section 13, T5N/R4W;
then
(9) Proceed west along Imola Avenue
for 2.1 miles, crossing from the Mt.
George map onto the Napa map, to the
intersection of Imola Avenue with the
Napa River at the Maxwell Bridge, T5N/
R4W; then
(10) Proceed north (upstream) along
the Napa River for 3.2 miles, crossing
over the T6N/T5N common line, to the
intersection of the Napa River with
Milliken Creek, T6N/R4W; then
(11) Proceed north (upstream) along
Milliken Creek for 0.75 mile to the
intersection of Milliken Creek with
Monticello Road, T6N/R4W; then
(12) Proceed northeast along
Monticello Road for 2.4 miles, crossing
from the Napa map onto the Mt. George
map, to the intersection of Monticello
Road with the section 19 west boundary
line, T6N/R3W; and then
(13) Proceed east-southeast in a
straight line for 1.4 miles to the
beginning point, section 29, T6N/R3W.
Signed: September 28, 2011.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: October 19, 2011.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011–32018 Filed 12–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB–2011–0004; T.D. TTB–98;
Re: Notice Nos. 34, 42, and 117]
RIN 1513–AA64
Establishment of the Fort RossSeaview Viticultural Area
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
AGENCY:
This Treasury decision
establishes the 27,500-acre ‘‘Fort RossSeaview’’ viticultural area in the
western part of Sonoma County,
California. TTB designates viticultural
areas to allow vintners to better describe
the origin of their wines and to allow
consumers to better identify wines they
may purchase.
DATES: Effective Date: January 13, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elisabeth C. Kann, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G St. NW.,
Room 200E, Washington, DC 20220;
phone (202) 453–1039, ext. 002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act (FAA Act), 27
U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary
of the Treasury to prescribe regulations
for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits,
and malt beverages. The FAA Act
provides that these regulations should,
among other things, prohibit consumer
deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels and ensure that
labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity
and quality of the product. The Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB) administers the regulations
promulgated under the FAA Act.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
part 4) provides for the establishment of
definitive viticultural areas and the use
of their names as appellations of origin
on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth
standards for the preparation,
submission, and approval of petitions
for the establishment or modification of
American viticultural areas and lists the
approved American viticultural areas.
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines
a viticultural area for American wine as
a delimited grape-growing region having
distinguishing features as described in
part 9 of the regulations and a name and
a delineated boundary as established in
part 9 of the regulations. These
designations allow vintners and
consumers to attribute a given quality,
reputation, or other characteristic of a
wine made from grapes grown in an area
to its geographic origin. The
establishment of viticultural areas
allows vintners to describe more
accurately the origin of their wines to
consumers and helps consumers to
identify wines they may purchase.
Establishment of a viticultural area is
neither an approval nor an endorsement
by TTB of the wine produced in that
area.
Requirements
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB
regulations outlines the procedure for
proposing the establishment of an
American viticultural area and provides
that any interested party may petition
TTB to establish a grape-growing region
as a viticultural area. Section 9.12 of the
TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12)
prescribes standards for petitions for the
establishment or modification of
American viticultural areas. Such
petitions must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the
viticultural area boundary is nationally
or locally known by the viticultural area
name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for
defining the boundary of the viticultural
area;
• A narrative description of the
features of the viticultural area that
affect viticulture, such as climate,
geology, soils, physical features, and
elevation, that make it distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas
outside the viticultural area boundary;
• A copy of the appropriate United
States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s)
showing the location of the viticultural
area, with the boundary of the
viticultural area clearly drawn thereon;
and
• A detailed narrative description of
the viticultural area boundary based on
USGS map markings.
The 2003 Fort Ross-Seaview Petition
Patrick Shabram, on behalf of himself
and David Hirsch of Hirsch Vineyards,
submitted a petition in 2003 to establish
the 27,500-acre Fort Ross-Seaview
American viticultural area in the
western part of Sonoma County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
California (the Shabram-Hirsch
petition). The Shabram-Hirsch petition
states that the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area, which
contains 18 commercial vineyards on
506 acres, lies close to the Pacific Ocean
and about 65 miles north-northwest of
San Francisco. It lies entirely within the
Sonoma Coast viticultural area (27 CFR
9.116), which lies entirely within the
multicounty North Coast viticultural
area (27 CFR 9.30). The proposed
viticultural area would not overlap, or
otherwise affect, any other viticultural
areas.
Name Evidence
In 1812, Fort Ross was established by
Russian fur trappers on a bluff, lying
just west of the boundary of the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area and overlooking the Pacific Ocean,
according to the Shabram-Hirsch
petition. The fort served as Russia’s
southernmost outpost in the Pacific
Northwest until it was abandoned in
1841. Since 1906, the site of the fort has
been called the Fort Ross State Historic
Park; a reconstructed fort now is open
to the public. Seaview is a small,
unincorporated community and real
estate development located along the
Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1)
and located nearby and to the north of
the park. Much of the Seaview
community is located within the
proposed viticultural area.
Fort Ross Road winds through the
southern portion of the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area, as
shown on the 1978 USGS Fort Ross
quadrangle map; also shown on the map
are Seaview Cemetery and, extending
northward in the proposed viticultural
area, Seaview Road. The intersection of
Fort Ross and Seaview Roads lies to the
northeast of the Fort Ross State Historic
Park (California State Automobile
Association, ‘‘Mendocino and Sonoma
Coast’’ map, October 2000), according to
the Shabram-Hirsch petition.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states
that the location of the proposed
viticultural area is commonly called
‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview’’ by local grape
growers. In a letter to Mr. Shabram
explaining the origins and usage of the
proposed ‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview’’ name,
Daniel Schoenfeld, a grape grower and
longtime resident, claimed that the Fort
Ross-Seaview name identifies the
proposed viticultural area and
distinguishes the area from other
geographic place names. Although all
three names, ‘‘Fort Ross,’’ ‘‘Seaview,’’
and ‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview,’’ have been
used to identify the area, Mr.
Schoenfeld noted an increased
incidence in use of the Fort Ross-
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
77685
Seaview name in recent years. For
example, the land within and near the
proposed viticultural area in the
western part of Sonoma County has
been called the ‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview
district’’ (‘‘A Miraculous Intersection: A
Short History of Viticulture and
Winegrowing in Western Sonoma
County’’ by Charles L. Sullivan, 2001),
according to the Shabram-Hirsch
petition.
Boundary Evidence
According to the Shabram-Hirsch
petition, viticulture within the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area
dates to 1817, when Captain Leontii
Andreianovich Hagemeister planted
Peruvian grape cuttings at Fort Ross. In
1973, Michael Bohan planted two acres
of grapes three miles east of Fort Ross,
between Seaview Road and Creighton
Ridge. In 1974, he planted another 15
acres, and, in 1976, he started selling his
grape harvests to wineries in Sonoma
and Santa Cruz Counties, California. In
1980, co-petitioner David Hirsch
planted a vineyard between the 1,300and 1,600-foot elevations in the Fort
Ross-Seaview area, according to his
April 15, 2003 letter to Mr. Shabram
that was submitted as a supplemental
exhibit to the petition. The petition
notes that, in spring 2003, the proposed
viticultural area contained 18
commercial vineyards on 506 acres.
According to the Shabram-Hirsch
petition, the boundary of the proposed
viticultural area generally incorporates
most of the contiguous 920-foot
elevation line. It also incorporates the
ridges, hills, and mountains at higher
elevations located along the Pacific
coast near Fort Ross and Seaview in
western Sonoma County. The 920-foot
elevation line and the higher elevations
separate the sunnier proposed
viticultural area from the surrounding
foggy areas, which are at lower
elevations.
The western portion of the boundary
line of the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area is located between 0.5
and 2.5 miles from the Pacific coastline
and mostly at or above the 920-foot
elevation line, as shown on the USGS
maps submitted with the ShabramHirsch petition. Coincidentally, the San
Andreas Rift Zone runs generally
parallel to and west of the western
portion of the proposed boundary line
and east of the Pacific coast, as shown
on the USGS maps.
In his 2003 letter, Mr. Hirsch also
explained that, because coastal fog does
not rise above the 920-foot elevation
line, the proposed viticultural area
receives more hours of solar radiation
than the surrounding lower elevations,
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
77686
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
which cannot support successful
viticulture. ‘‘During the summer, fog
usually covers the Sonoma Coast during
the morning and burns off about noon,’’
he wrote. ‘‘This marine fog layer seldom
rises above 900 feet, which explains
why there are no vineyards below this
elevation in the proposed area.’’ In
addition, according to the ShabramHirsch petition, the moderating
temperatures of the Pacific Ocean
reduce the risk of nighttime freeze and
frost within the proposed viticultural
area.
Distinguishing Features
The distinguishing features of the
27,500-acre proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area are topography, soils,
and climate, according to the ShabramHirsch petition.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Topography
The Shabram-Hirsch petition explains
that vineyards within the proposed
viticultural area are generally located on
rounded ridges with summits extending
above 1,200 feet. The USGS maps
submitted with the petition show that
the proposed viticultural area consists
of steep, mountainous terrain made up
of canyons, narrow valleys, ridges, and
800- to 1,800-foot peaks. The area,
mainly at elevations of between 920 and
1,800 feet, has meandering, light-duty or
unimproved roads and jeep trails and
scattered creeks and ponds.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition did not
include a description of the topography
in the surrounding areas.
Soils
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states
that the soils consist of Yorkville,
Boomer, Sobrante, Laughlin, and many
other soils within the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area (Soil
Survey of Sonoma County, California,
issued by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, 1990, pp. 44 and
45). Hugo soils are common in the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area and in the mountain ranges of
Sonoma County and Mendocino County
to the north of the proposed viticultural
area. Hugo soils are well drained, very
gravelly loams derived from sandstone
and shale (see publication cited above).
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states
that some soils in the proposed
viticultural area derived from
metamorphic rocks and, to a lesser
extent, igneous rocks, but most soils
derived from sedimentary rocks
(untitled maps, by M.E. Huffman and
C.F. Armstrong, California Department
of Conservation Division of Mines and
Geology, reprinted 2000). The petition
also states that the sedimentary rocks in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
the proposed viticultural area contrast
with the relatively younger sedimentary
rocks that are the parent material of the
soils in the area to the west and that
coincide with the San Andreas Rift
Zone.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition did not
include any soils data for the
surrounding areas, except for the area to
the west mentioned above.
Climate
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states
that generally the proposed viticultural
area is not directly affected by marine
fog. In areas generally above 900 feet in
elevation, the climate is influenced by
longer periods of sunlight and is warmer
than that in the surrounding land below
900 feet. The prevalence of marine fog
below the 900-foot elevation line causes
the surrounding, lower areas to be
cooler and to have a shorter growing
season than that in the proposed
viticultural area.
According to the Shabram-Hirsch
petition, the coastal fog and its effects
on agriculture were studied for more
than 3 decades by Robert Sisson, former
County Director and Farm Advisor for
Sonoma County (‘‘Guidelines for
Assessing the Viticultural Potential of
Sonoma County: An Analysis of the
Physical Environment,’’ M.A. thesis by
Carol Ann Lawson, University of
California, Davis, 1976). Mr. Sisson
mapped the diverse climate of the
lowermost, foggy coastal areas that
surround some of the higher, sunnier
elevations, according to the petition.
TTB notes that the Sisson system of
climatic classification takes into account
the amount of time that a vine is
actually exposed to a certain
temperature. The system uses such
terms as ‘‘Coastal Cool’’ and ‘‘Coastal
Warm,’’ which incorporate a method of
heat summation that takes into account
not only the highs and lows but the
number of hours at which temperatures
remain in the highly effective
photosynthesis range of 70 to 90 °F.
‘‘Coastal Cool’’ is designated as having
a cumulative duration of less than 1,000
hours between 70 °F and 90 °F in April
through October.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states
that the proposed viticultural area is
‘‘Coastal Cool’’ (‘‘Climate Types of
Sonoma County,’’ map, Vassen, 1986).
The area can support viticulture, in
contrast to the surrounding, lowerelevation, cooler, less sunny, marine
climatic areas that cannot sustain
viticulture, according to the petition.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition also
states that the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area is in the
heaviest fog intrusion area, spanning the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
entire coast of Sonoma County (‘‘Lines
of Heaviest and Average Maximum Fog
Intrusion for Sonoma County,’’ map, by
Carol Ann Lawson, 1976). However,
TTB notes that this map does not detail
the heavy fog line from the contrasting
warmer and sunnier microclimates at
higher elevations, such as that which
exists in the proposed viticultural area.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states
that the water temperature of the ocean
off the Pacific coast to the west of the
proposed viticultural area rarely rises
above 60 degrees Fahrenheit. From midspring to fall, a fogbank is created
offshore that moves inland through lowelevation mountain gaps and valleys.
The fog, rarely rising above the 900-foot
elevation line, cools temperatures on
shore and reduces sunshine in the early
mornings and late afternoons at
elevations of 900 feet or less.
Consequently, the proposed viticultural
area, which lies mainly between the
920- and 1,800-foot elevation lines,
receives less fog and more sun during
the growing season than the
surrounding, lower areas.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition
compares the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area to the
southwestern portion of the Sonoma
Coast and nearby Russian River Valley
viticultural areas. Those areas, to the
southwest and to the northeast,
respectively, have cool and
comparatively less sunny climates
because they generally receive marine
fog and do not lie above the fog line.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states
that temperatures are roughly
comparable during the coolest part of
the year at Fort Ross State Historic Park
at the 112-foot elevation level, just west
of the proposed boundary, and at
Campmeeting Ridge in Seaview at the
1,220-foot elevation level, located
within the proposed viticultural area
(‘‘Unique Climatic and Environmental
Characteristics of the Proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview Viticultural Area,’’ 2001,
by Patrick L. Shabram). However, daily
high temperatures during the growing
season May through October and daily
low temperatures in June and from
August through October are warmer on
the ridge than at the park, according to
the petition. Significant growing season
temperature variations occur at points
between these lower and higher
elevations (see publication cited above).
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and
Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 34
regarding the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area in the Federal
Register on March 8, 2005 (70 FR
11174). In Notice No. 34, TTB invited
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
comments from all interested members
of the public on or before May 9, 2005.
In response to a request from an
industry member, TTB subsequently
extended the comment period of Notice
No. 34 from May 12, 2005 until June 8,
2005 (see Notice No. 42, published in
the Federal Register at 70 FR 25000
(May 12, 2005)).
In Notice No. 34, TTB specifically
invited comments regarding whether
‘‘Ft. Ross-Seaview,’’ ‘‘Fort Ross,’’ ‘‘Ft.
Ross,’’ and ‘‘Seaview’’ should be
designated as terms of viticultural
significance in addition to the full ‘‘Fort
Ross-Seaview’’ name. TTB also solicited
comments on the sufficiency and
accuracy of the name, boundary,
climatic, and other required information
submitted in support of the petition.
Comments Received in Response to
Notice No. 34
TTB received seven comments in
response to Notice No. 34. Two
comments support the petition without
qualification, and a third commenter
supports the proposed viticultural area
but expressed concern about a potential
conflict with his brand name if ‘‘Fort
Ross’’ or Ft. Ross’’ alone are designated
as terms of viticultural significance.
Four additional comments oppose the
petition on the ground that the proposed
boundary line excludes a region to the
north that the commenters contend has
similar geographical features as the
petitioned-for viticultural area.
The commenters in support of Notice
No. 34 include co-petitioner David
Hirsch, of Hirsch Vineyards, who has
been growing wine grapes at a vineyard
at an elevation of 1,500 feet in the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area since 1980. In comment 2, Mr.
Hirsch explains the importance of the
area’s marine-influenced climate, soils,
and topography in producing premium
grapes in the region. In comment 4, two
local grape-growers that have been
operating their vineyard on a 1,500-foot
elevation ridgetop in the proposed
viticultural area since 1982 explain that
grape growing is part of the heritage of
the Fort Ross-Seaview region. Both
comments 2 and 4 emphasize that the
establishment of the proposed
viticultural area would help consumers
identify wines made from grapes grown
in the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area.
In addition, in comment 3, a local
vineyard and winery owner generally
supports the establishment of the
proposed viticultural area, but the
owner opposes the designation of ‘‘Fort
Ross’’ and ‘‘Ft. Ross’’ as viticulturally
significant terms because it would
create a conflict with the owner’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
trademarked ‘‘Fort Ross Winery’’ and
‘‘Fort Ross Vineyard’’ names, which the
owner states would cause irreparable
economic hardship and potentially
cause consumer confusion.
Four additional comments, Nos. 1, 5,
6, and 7, oppose Notice No. 34 based on
the proposed boundary line and propose
an alternate boundary line that would
include an additional area to the north.
According to the four opposing
commenters, all of whom own
vineyards and/or wineries in the area to
the north of the proposed viticultural
area (the Northern Commenters), the
vineyards in that area have the same
distinguishing features and
characteristics as the vineyards located
within the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area to the south. The
Northern Commenters contend that the
northern portion of the proposed
boundary line should extend northward
to Buckeye Creek, which would include
a region generally referred to as the
‘‘Annapolis area.’’ In addition, two of
the Northern Commenters also express
concern about the use of the ‘‘Fort RossSeaview’’ name, explaining that the
‘‘Fort Ross’’ name is used by the Fort
Ross Winery and that the ‘‘Seaview’’
name is used by an Australian sparkling
wine bottler.
In comment 5, one of the Northern
Commenters suggested that TTB delay
establishing the Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area to allow the growers in
the northern area the opportunity to
gather and submit documentation
supporting a northern expansion of the
27,500-acre proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area (the Northern
Addition). TTB agreed to a delay, and
on November 11, 2005, the Northern
Commenters submitted a petition, USGS
maps, and a written boundary
description for a proposed expansion of
the 27,500-acre proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area to include the
Northern Addition (the Northern
Addition petition).
The Northern Addition Petition
In the Northern Addition petition, the
Northern Commenters petitioned for a
15,726-acre expansion of the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area,
which included 28 commercial
vineyards on about 900 acres as of
November 11, 2005. The documentation
included a narrative explaining the
basis for the proposal as well as
supporting evidence relating to the
historic name usage and distinguishing
features of the Northern Addition.
According to the Northern Addition
petition, the Northern Addition is wellsuited for commercial viticulture
because the area vineyards, which are
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
77687
located at inland elevations between
700 and 900 feet, are protected from
marine fog intrusion by parallel coastal
ridges at elevations of 920 feet or higher.
The coastal ridges effectively buffer the
cooling fog of the Pacific Ocean from
inland vineyards, according to the
Northern Addition petition.
Name Evidence: The Northern
Addition petition states that, since the
Russian occupation of northern
California, the ‘‘Fort Ross’’ name has
continuously been used to identify the
Sonoma County coastline north of the
Russian River (including the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and
the proposed Northern Addition).
Citing historical evidence relating to
the Russian occupation’s effect on
native populations in the early and mid1800s and the development of the area
surrounding Fort Ross by George
Washington Call in the mid-1870s, the
Northern Addition petition contends
that the historically-recognized ‘‘Fort
Ross Region’’ extends northward from
the Russian River to approximately the
Gualala River and six to nine miles
inland from the Pacific coastline, and
that region includes the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area as well as
the proposed Northern Addition (‘‘The
Archeology and Ethnohistory of Fort
Ross, California,’’ by Kent G. Lightfoot,
Thomas A. Wake, and Ann M. Schiff,
Archaeological Research Facility,
University of California at Berkeley,
1991). The Northern Addition petition
further notes that the natural
environment of the ‘‘Fort Ross Region’’
extends, south to north, from the small
coastal town of Jenner, located at the
mouth of the Russian River, to the town
of Gualala, located at the mouth of the
Gualala River.
The Northern Addition petition adds
that the ‘‘Seaview’’ geographical place
name identifies the tiny coastal
community of Seaview and Seaview
Road, which the Northern Addition
petition notes is ‘‘some distance’’ from
the vineyards in the Northern Addition.
The Northern Addition petition points
out, however, that some vineyards in
the 27,500-acre proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area are also
located at similar distances from the
Seaview community.
Given the distance of the Northern
Addition from the Seaview community,
the Northern Commenters proposed that
the ‘‘Fort Ross’’ portion of the proposed
viticultural area name be modified by an
alternative geographical place name in
lieu of ‘‘Seaview’’ that would better
describe the proposed viticultural area
with the 15,726-acre Northern Addition,
such as ‘‘Stewarts Point’’ or
‘‘Annapolis.’’ TTB notes that ‘‘Stewarts
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
77688
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Point’’ and ‘‘Annapolis’’ are
geographical place names that refer to
areas located in or near the Northern
Addition and are outside the boundary
line of the 27,500-acre proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area.
Alternatively, the Northern Commenters
suggested adding ‘‘Region’’ to the ‘‘Fort
Ross’’ name or combining ‘‘Fort Ross’’
with ‘‘Sonoma Coast’’ or ‘‘Northern
Sonoma Coast.’’
Boundary Evidence: According to the
Northern Addition petition, the
proposed boundary line expansion is
based on the geographical features of the
15,726-acre Northern Addition, which
are similar to the distinguishing
geographical features of the proposed
27,500-acre Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area.
The Northern Addition petition
explains that the western portion of the
boundary line for the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area would
combine with the western portion of the
proposed boundary line for the
Northern Addition. The combined
boundary line follows a high-elevation
ridgeline that limits the inland intrusion
of cooling marine fog off the Pacific
Ocean. The northernmost portion of the
proposed boundary line for the
Northern Addition parallels the 600- to
400-foot elevations in the area of
Buckeye Creek, a tributary of the South
Fork of the Gualala River, as shown on
USGS maps. The Northern Addition
petition states that Buckeye Creek forms
a natural boundary line between higher
elevation areas to the south and north.
The eastern portion of the proposed
boundary line for the Northern Addition
follows a 600-foot elevation line and
roads on ridgelines between the
generally mountainous coastal terrain
and the very rugged interior mountains
to the east. To the southeast, the
proposed boundary line for the
Northern Addition joins with the
northeastern portion of the boundary
line of the 27,500-acre proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area,
according to the Northern Addition
petition.
Distinguishing Features: The Northern
Addition petition contends that the
proposed Northern Addition shares the
same distinguishing features of
topography, climate, and soils as the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area.
Topography: The Northern Addition
petition states that the topography is
similar in both the 27,500-acre proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and
the Northern Addition. According to the
Northern Addition petition, the
topography of the proposed Northern
Addition consists of steep mountains
with 5 to 70 percent slopes, 1,500-foot
ridgetops, and valleys. In addition, the
first ridgeline inland from the Pacific
Ocean, which buffers coastal fog, forms
the western portion of the boundary line
of both the 27,500-acre proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area and the
proposed Northern Addition, according
to the boundary descriptions.
Climate: The Northern Addition
petition asserts that the 27,500-acre
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area and the proposed Northern
Addition share a similar climate, which
is the primary defining feature of the
area according to the Northern
Commenters.
The Northern Addition petition
compares the data on average annual
heat accumulation, measured in
growing degree days 1 (GDD), for three
vineyards in the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area to similar data
for a vineyard located in the proposed
Northern Addition. The data for the
three vineyards in the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area
originated from the Shabram-Hirsch
petition. According to the data, which is
summarized in the below table, all of
the vineyards are located in Winkler
climatic region II, which has 2,501–
3,000 GDDs per year.
Average annual
degree days
Location
Jordan ..................................
Campmeeting Ridge ............
Nobles ..................................
La Crema .............................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Vineyard
27,500-acre proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area ..........................................................
27,500-acre proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area ..........................................................
27,500-acre proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area ..........................................................
Northern Addition ..........................................................................................................................
2,605
2,615
2,580
2,580
In addition, according to the Northern
Addition petition and the above data, all
four vineyards have a Coastal Cool
climate using the Sisson system of
climactic classification cited in the
Shabram-Hirsch petition, in which areas
with degree day accumulations in the
higher Region I or lower Region II range
are considered to be Coastal Cool.
According to the Northern Addition
petition, a map submitted with the
Shabram-Hirsch petition that is based
on Sisson’s research also shows that all
of the vineyards in the proposed
Northern Addition are located within
the Coastal Cool classification,
including the lower 560- to 890-foot
elevations of the vineyards in the
Northern Addition (Vassen, ‘‘Climate
Types of Sonoma County Map,’’ 1986).
The Northern Addition petition
contends that the Marine Cold and
Coastal Cool climate classifications are
not rigidly divided at the 900-foot
elevation line, and that the vineyards at
the lower, 560- to 890-foot elevations in
the proposed Northern Addition receive
adequate solar radiation for grape
ripening because they are surrounded
by a higher elevation ridge to the west
that decreases the frequency of fog
intrusion and its concomitant cooling
effects.
The Northern Addition petition also
provides a comparison of growing
season temperatures for Fort Ross State
Historic Park (located at the 112-foot
elevation to the west of the proposed
viticultural area) and La Crema
Vineyard (located in the proposed
Northern Addition) to establish that
both the Northern Addition and the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area have warmer temperatures during
the growing season as compared to the
coastal, lower elevation Fort Ross State
Historic Park. As with the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area, the data
show that the Northern Addition has
average temperatures that are roughly
comparable to those at Fort Ross State
Historic Park when little fog occurs
during the coolest part of the year and
in the evenings during the growing
season. By contrast, and similar to the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area, the Northern Addition has daytime
high temperatures during the growing
season that are significantly higher than
the growing season daytime high
1 In the Winkler climatic classification system,
annual heat accumulation during the growing
season, measured in annual GDD, defines climatic
regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree
Fahrenheit that a day’s mean temperature is above
50 degrees, the minimum temperature required for
grapevine growth. Climatic region I has less than
2,500 GDD per year; region II, 2,501 to 3,000; region
III, 3,001 to 3,500; region IV, 3,501 to 4,000; and
region V, 4,001 or more (‘‘General Viticulture,’’ by
Albert J. Winkler, University of California Press,
1974, pages 61–64).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
temperatures at Fort Ross State Historic
Park. The Northern Addition petitioners
attribute these significantly higher
temperatures to the warming effect of
solar radiation during the daytime that
is similar to the growing season
warming that occurs in the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area.
The Northern Addition petition
explains that the terrain of the region
contributes to its distinctive climate
because the high elevation ridge along
the Pacific coastline blocks or slows the
intrusion of marine fog currents flowing
inland. According to the Northern
Addition petition, the growing season
climate of the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area and the
Northern Addition are similar because
they both are affected by the fogbuffering caused by the coastal ridges
and hills along the northernmost
portions of the Sonoma Coast
viticultural area. The Northern Addition
petition further notes that the
mountainous terrain in the region
causes nighttime cool air to drain from
the surrounding ridges and hillsides to
the lower elevations, thereby extending
the growing season on the higher ridges
and hillsides and reducing the risk of
springtime frost in both the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and
the proposed Northern Addition.
Soils: The Northern Addition petition
states that the soils in both the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and
the proposed Northern Addition are
varied, well drained, and nonalluvial
(Soil Survey of Sonoma County,
California, 1972, issued by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service).
Goldridge, Yorkville, Josephine, and
Laughlin soils are common in both
areas, and Hugo soils make up 54
percent of the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area and 45 percent
of the proposed Northern Addition (see
publication cited above), according to
the Northern Addition petition.
Shabram Response to the Northern
Addition Petition
Following the submission of the
Northern Addition petition, Patrick
Shabram, co-author of the ShabramHirsch petition, submitted additional
documentation to support the
establishment of the 27,500-acre Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area as
originally proposed (the Shabram
response).
As a general matter, the Shabram
response emphasizes that the Northern
Addition area, which is known as the
Annapolis region, is a grape growing
area distinct and separate from the
petitioned-for Fort Ross-Seaview
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
viticultural area, notwithstanding some
similar characteristics. The Shabram
response further contends that the
arguments presented in favor of the
Northern Addition, especially the
argument premised on the similar
Coastal Cool climate classification in
both regions, are equally applicable to
other nearby California coastal regions.
Accordingly, the Shabram response
argues that an expansion of the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area based on the grounds stated in the
Northern Addition petition would
warrant a larger expansion into other
neighboring regions, including the
established Mendocino Ridge
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.158) to the
north, established by T.D. ATF–392
(published in the Federal Register at 62
FR 55512 (October 27, 1997)), and the
proposed Freestone-Occidental
viticultural area (a petition under TTB
review) to the south, both of which
generally share a similar Coastal Cool
climate as a result of coastal fog and
have some similar soil types. Such an
expansion would create a larger,
regional viticultural area more akin to
the established Sonoma Coast
viticultural area as compared to the
smaller, local viticultural area that was
sought by the Fort Ross-Seaview
petitioners.
Name Evidence: The Shabram
response states that the ‘‘Fort RossSeaview’’ name is not associated with
the Northern Addition area, and it
argues that use of the name to identify
the viticulture of the Northern Addition
would be confusing to consumers.
According to the Shabram response, the
Northern Addition area is instead
recognized as a separate geographical
region known as ‘‘Annapolis,’’ which is
the reason why the area was not
considered for inclusion when the Fort
Ross-Seaview growers first considered
petitioning for a viticultural area. The
Shabram response notes that the
Northern Addition petitioners’ proposed
amendment of the ‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview’’
name to either ‘‘Fort Ross-Annapolis’’ or
‘‘Sonoma Coast Mountains’’ for the
proposed expanded viticultural area
(including the Northern Addition)
shows that the name lacks significance
in the Annapolis area.
As explained in the Shabram
response, the Fort Ross-Seaview
vineyard owners considered various
other potential names when discussing
the best geographical name for their
proposed viticultural area, including but
not limited to Fort Ross, Fort Ross
Ridges, Seaview, and Seaview Ridges
(‘‘California’s New Frontier,’’ by Steve
Heimoff, ‘‘Wine Enthusiast,’’ July 2001).
According to the Shabram response, the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
77689
area vineyard owners ultimately agreed
that the area is called both the ‘‘Fort
Ross area’’ and the ‘‘Seaview area,’’ and
that both names are significant to local
viticulture (see publication cited above),
resulting in the proposed ‘‘Fort RossSeaview’’ name.
In further support of the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview name, the Shabram
response quotes two Fort Ross vineyard
owners regarding the significance of the
name. One area grower, Lester
Schwartz, stated in a supplemental
exhibit to the petition that ‘‘[t]he
petitioners chose ‘Fort Ross-Seaview’
because that is what locals call the area
which produces fine grapes and wine’’
(Schwartz letter to TTB, dated May 4,
2005). Another local grower, Daniel
Schoenfeld, stated in his 2004 letter to
Mr. Shabram about the ‘‘Fort RossSeaview’’ name that ‘‘[t]he region that
constitutes the proposed AVA is known
as the ‘Fort Ross’ area, as the ‘Seaview’
area, and as the ‘Fort Ross-Seaview’
area. All three names have been used
interchangeably to describe the area.
‘Fort Ross-Seaview’ has been used for a
number of years in verbal
communication to eliminate confusion
associated with the different names’’ (in
conversation with TTB personnel, May
18, 2004).
The Shabram response further states
that writers consistently do not include
the Northern Addition (or Annapolis)
region when referring to the Fort RossSeaview area, or vice versa. As noted in
the discussion of the Shabram-Hirsch
petition above, Charles Sullivan used
the ‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview’’ name to refer
to the area, which was before the local
growers reached a consensus on the
name of the proposed viticultural area,
and the Shabram Response notes that
Mr. Sullivan does not mention
Annapolis or the Northern Addition
when discussing Fort Ross-Seaview
viticulture. In addition, the Shabram
response points out that the Friends of
the Gualala River Web site (available at
https://gualalariver.org/) has a map that
shows the location of local Annapolis
vineyards, but it does not include the
vineyards in the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area to the south.
The Shabram response also notes that
the location of the vineyards of two of
the Northern Addition petitioners, Brice
Jones and Don Hartford, has been
referred to as ‘‘Annapolis’’ rather than
‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview’’: Mr. Jones was
described as an ‘‘Annapolis vintner’’ in
a news article (‘‘Brice Jones, Artesa
Open Routes Across Land for Animals:
Annapolis Winegrowers to Establish
Wildlife Corridors,’’ by Carol Benfell,
[Santa Rosa] Press Democrat, September
11, 2001); and the Hartford Family
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
77690
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Winery notes that the Lands Edge
Vineyards 2007 Pinot Noir ‘‘is sourced
predominantly from our estate’s
Annapolis vineyard’’ (https://www.
hartfordwines.com/wines/pinotnoir/
landsedge.html).
Boundary Evidence: The Shabram
response contends that there are three
geographically distinctive viticultural
areas in coastal Sonoma County:
Annapolis (north), Fort Ross-Seaview
(middle), and Freestone-Occidental
(south).
As stated in ‘‘A Wine Journey along
the Russian River,’’ a source cited in the
Shabram response, Sonoma County
coastal viticulture ‘‘is clustered in three
areas close to the shore: Annapolis up
north, near the Mendocino County line;
Fort Ross in the center; and (merging
these two areas into one) Occidental
Ridges and Freestone, to the south
(which some people refer to as the
Bodega plantings)’’ (Steve Heimoff,
University of California Press, 2005,
pages 234–5). The Shabram response
also refers to a map that depicts the
separate vineyard clusters in the
Annapolis, Fort Ross-Seaview, and
Freestone-Occidental areas (‘‘Sonoma
Coast,’’ map no. 11, in ‘‘North American
Pinot Noir,’’ by John Winthrop Haeger,
University of California Press, 2004) and
notes that none of the Fort Ross-Seaview
wine growers that Mr. Heimoff
specifically names in his book are
located in the Annapolis area of the
map.
The Shabram response explains that
the Fort Ross-Seaview vineyards are
clustered together along several higher
ridges in close proximity to the Pacific
Ocean, unlike the vineyards generally
clustered at the lower elevations further
inland around the town of Annapolis to
the north. The Wheatfield Fork of the
Gualala River is located between the
two clusters of vineyards on the ridges,
and the area adjacent to the Fork is
characterized by fog intrusion and a
steep valley that drops to an elevation
of 160 feet. Commercial viticulture is
difficult, if not impossible, in the area
adjacent to the Wheatfield Fork because
of the fog and the steep terrain,
according to the Shabram response.
The Shabram response also states that
the Annapolis area consists of the ridges
surrounding the Wheatfield Fork and
Buckeye and Grasshopper Creeks
(located in the proposed Northern
Addition). By contrast, the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area is
located to the south of the Annapolis
area and consists of a series of ridges
that are separated from the surrounding
areas by the Wheatfield Fork and the
South Fork of the Gualala River and
tributary creeks (‘‘North American Pinot
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
Noir,’’ page 92). The Shabram response
states that further south, the FreestoneOccidental area contains ridges that are
separated from one another by
tributaries of Salmon Creek (see
publication cited above). The Shabram
response also notes that, in the Northern
Addition, the vineyard closest to the
northernmost vineyard in the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area is
approximately 3.5 miles away
(measured in a straight line), whereas all
of the vineyards within the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area are
located within an approximately 10
mile stretch, with no vineyard more
than 1.5 miles away from another
vineyard.
Distinguishing Features: The Shabram
response states that subtle climatic and
geographic differences exist between the
Annapolis and Fort Ross-Seaview
regions. Although both areas broadly
share a Coastal Cool climate
classification, the Shabram response
explains that there are differences in the
nature of the coastal cooling in each
area, which are largely based on the
higher elevations of vineyards in the
Fort Ross-Seaview area as compared to
those in the Annapolis area. As a result,
each area receives different amounts of
total solar radiation, which in turn
affects the ripening times for grapes in
those areas, according to the Shabram
response.
The Shabram response states that
vineyards in the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area are located at
high elevations above the fog line, so
they receive a full day of solar radiation.
David Hirsch, Joan and Walt Flowers,
and Daniel Schoenfeld, all local growers
in the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area, attested to Mr.
Shabram and to Wine News magazine
(Jeff Cox, ‘‘Cool Climate Pioneers—
Sonoma’s Ridgetop Winegrowers Scale
New Heights,’’ Wine News, August/
September 2002) that foggy conditions
transition to clear skies beginning at the
900-foot elevations of the Fort RossSeaview area. Although the 900-foot
elevation line does not mark an absolute
break in the fog, it is the best available
evidence of a fog ceiling, according to
the Shabram response.
Further, the Shabram response states
that, although the convection and
conduction of fog from the Pacific
Ocean cool both the Annapolis and Fort
Ross-Seaview areas, the vineyards in the
Annapolis area are cooler because they
are situated at lower elevations, where
partial fog reduces total solar radiation,
despite the presence of a ridgeline to the
west that buffers the fog. For example,
the Shabram response quotes a
description of Peay Vineyards (located
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
in the Northern Addition), in which it
is described as sitting ‘‘on a hilltop that
is not way up in the air, but just at the
top of the fog level, low enough to be
very cool, but high enough not to be too
cool and wet for grapes’’ (https://www.
peayvineyards.com/). [TTB notes that
Peay Vineyards is located at an
elevation of approximately 755 feet, as
shown on a topographical map provided
by the Northern Commenters.] By
comparison, the vineyards in the Fort
Ross-Seaview area typically are located
at higher elevations that are above the
fog inversion layer, so they are therefore
less cooled by fog and receive greater
solar radiation warming while still
receiving some cooling via conduction
due to the close proximity of the fog
layer, according to the Shabram
response.
The Shabram response also provides
a statement from Vanessa Wong, a grape
grower and winemaker at Peay
Vineyards who has worked with
vineyards located in both the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and
the Northern Addition for the past nine
vintages and has also made wines from
grapes grown in both areas. Ms. Wong
explains that the inversion layer of cool
ocean fog persists throughout the day in
her vineyards in the Northern Addition.
According to Ms. Wong, coastal breezes
blow cool air along unobstructed land
between sea level and 1,000 feet in
altitude, which is the mean top of the
inversion layer. By contrast, vineyards
located above the much cooler inversion
layer—including vineyards located
along the Fort Ross-Seaview ridges and
areas further inland—have warmer
temperatures.
Ms. Wong further states that grape
maturity dates differ significantly
between vineyards in the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area and those
in the Northern Addition. According to
Ms. Wong, for the same vintage and
grape variety, the harvest dates in the
Northern Addition are consistently later
than those in proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area, adding that
ripening generally occurs 10 to 14 days
earlier in the Fort Ross-Seaview area
than at the lower-elevation Peay
Vineyards. Ms. Wong attributes the later
ripening in the Annapolis area to the
cooler temperatures in that region: ‘‘I
believe that the pick dates for the
Annapolis area are later than those of
the Fort Ross-Seaview area because the
Annapolis area is cooler than the Fort
Ross-Seaview area.’’
The following table, which was
provided by Ms. Wong, illustrates the
difference in pick dates between the
Fort Ross-Seaview and Annapolis areas
and shows that, for the years that Ms.
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Wong provided data, the pick dates of
the vineyards in the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area are
significantly earlier than those of the
Fort RossSeaview
Vineyard
Pinot Noir-Pommard ...............................................................
Chardonnay .............................................................................
Pinot Noir 777 .........................................................................
Chardonnay .............................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Variety
Hirsch ...........
Hirsch ...........
Nobles ..........
Hirsch ...........
Determination To Reopen Public
Comment Period
Given the conflicting evidence
provided by the original petitioner and
by the Northern Commenters with
respect to the distinguishing features
and boundary line of the proposed
viticultural area, as well as the length of
time that had elapsed since TTB
published Notice No. 34 and solicited
public comments on the proposed
establishment of the Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area, TTB determined that it
was appropriate to reopen the comment
period for Notice No. 34 before taking
any final action regarding the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area.
Accordingly, TTB reopened the
comment period for Notice No. 34 for an
additional 45 days on April 21, 2011,
with comments due on or before June 6,
2011 (see Notice No. 117, published in
the Federal Register at 76 FR 22338).
Notice No. 117 did not contain the
details of the northern expansion
documentation (referred to here as the
‘‘Northern Addition petition’’) or of the
Shabram response due to the length of
those documents, but TTB informed the
public in Notice No. 117 that those
documents, as well as the original
Shabram-Hirsch petition, Notice No. 34,
and the original comments received in
response to Notice No. 34, were posted
for public viewing on Regulations.gov,
the Federal e-rulemaking portal.
In Notice No. 117, TTB specifically
invited comments on the following
issues: (1) Whether TTB should
establish the proposed ‘‘Fort RossSeaview’’ viticultural area; (2) the
sufficiency and accuracy of the
proposed viticultural area’s name, ‘‘Fort
Ross-Seaview,’’ including comments on
the name’s applicability to the proposed
Northern Addition and any alternative
names for the proposed viticultural area
and the Northern Addition area; and (3)
the appropriateness of the proposed
viticultural area’s boundary line and
whether the proposed viticultural area
is limited to the area within the
boundary line described in Notice No.
34 or if it also extends further to the
north as stated by the Northern
Commenters.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
Pick date
9/12/02
9/29/06
9/4/09
9/10/09
Comments Received in Response to
Notice No. 117
TTB received three comments in
response to Notice No. 117, all strongly
supporting the establishment of the Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area as
proposed in Notice No. 34. Two of the
comments, Nos. 8 and 9, were submitted
by local growers who had previously
submitted supporting comments in
response to Notice No. 34, Lester
Schwartz of Fort Ross Vineyard &
Winery LLC and David Hirsch,
respectively; the third comment, No. 10,
was submitted by Patrick Shabram.
There were no comments submitted by
the Northern Commenters in response to
Notice No. 117.
The supporting comments state their
opposition to the proposed Northern
Addition based on the distinctiveness of
the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area and their contention
that the Northern Addition (or the
Annapolis area) is a separate,
viticulturally distinct area. Comment 9
specifically notes the proposed
viticultural area’s distinctiveness based
on its location, soils, and climate,
stating that the area’s climate is
influenced by its close proximity to the
ocean as well as its altitude. In comment
10, Patrick Shabram reiterates his prior
contention that the main distinction
between the proposed viticultural area
and the Northern Addition is that the
vineyards located within the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area are
located above or in close proximity to
the intruding coastal fog, as compared to
the Northern Addition vineyards, which
are typically below the fog line. Mr.
Shabram adds that various local grape
growers have attested to the fact that
vineyards within the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area are
located above the fog, an assertion that
Mr. Shabram notes has not been
disputed by any growers inside or
outside of the proposed viticultural
area.
In support of the argument that the
Northern Addition is a unique area that
is separate and viticulturally distinct
from the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area, comments 8 and 10
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
77691
vineyards in the Northern Addition
area:
Annapolis
Vineyard
Peay
Peay
Peay
Peay
.............
.............
.............
.............
Pick date
9/23/02
10/9/06
9/18/09
10/6/09
Pick date
difference
(days)
11
11
14
26
refer to recent articles that recognize
that the Fort Ross-Seaview and
Annapolis areas are separate grapegrowing areas with different climates
within the larger Sonoma Coast region.
For example, both comments quote an
August 2, 2010 article by Eric Asimov,
the chief wine critic for the New York
Times, that discusses the diversity
within the large Sonoma Coast
viticultural area, stating that ‘‘[e]ven
along the narrow swath of land close to
the coast, numerous microclimates
emerge, making vineyards around
Annapolis to the north very different
from vineyards on the ridges above Fort
Ross in the appellation’s western
midsection, not to mention those to the
south near Freestone and Occidental’’
(Eric Asimov, ‘‘The Evolution of
Sonoma Coast Chardonnay,’’ The New
York Times, August 2, 2010).
Comment 10 also quotes an April 27,
2011 article from the Santa Rosa Press
Democrat that similarly identifies the
same ‘‘three particular coastal areas’’ of
the Sonoma Coast and distinguishes the
Annapolis area from the area to its
immediate south (the location of the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area) based on the Annapolis area’s
lower elevation ridges and its location
five to six miles inland from the Pacific
Ocean (Virginia Boone, ‘‘Wine Way Out
West,’’ Santa Rosa Press Democrat,
April 27, 2011).
In addition, comments 8 and 10 quote
a 2009 article by the wine editor of the
San Francisco Chronicle that names
Peay Vineyards as its Winery of the Year
and describes the cooler climate in the
Annapolis area as compared to the
warmer vineyards to the south (within
the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area), which are located
closer to the coast but above the
inversion layer: ‘‘Even by Sonoma Coast
standards, Peay occupies a chilly slice
of the world. While vineyards just to the
south like Hirsch * * * or Flowers
* * * may sit closer to the coast, they’re
above the inversion layer. The site in
Annapolis is lower, between 600 and
800 feet, with colder temperatures’’ (Jon
Bonne, ‘‘Winery of the Year: Peay
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
77692
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Vineyards,’’ San Francisco Chronicle,
December 27, 2009).
In another article about Peay that is
quoted in comments 8 and 10, Randy
Caparoso of Sommelier Journal
recounted Nick Peay’s description of the
distinctiveness of the Annapolis area as
contrasted to the Fort Ross-Seaview area
to the south:
Peay attributes the tightly wound
characteristics of Annapolis to the
macroclimate, with temperatures typically
ranging in the 60s and 70s during the
growing season—as frigid as it gets in the
entire county. As in Fort Ross-Seaview, days
are moderated by the ocean, only 4 miles
away, and nights are never too cold. But
unlike Fort Ross-Seaview, he says, the lowerelevation growths near Annapolis are
influenced by ‘‘unobstructed fog coming
straight up the river valley each day. We are
in the inversion layer, not above it’’ (Randy
Caparoso, ‘‘Sonoma Extreme,’’ Sommelier
Journal, January 31, 2011, pp. 70–80)
(emphasis in original).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
According to comment 10, Greg
LaFollette, a winemaker who has
worked with grape growers in various
coastal Sonoma locations (including
Fort Ross-Seaview), is quoted in that
same article as stating that he ‘‘always
experienced much higher degree-day
accumulation [in Fort Ross-Seaview]’’.
Comments 8 and 10 also cite the lack
of evidence demonstrating that the ‘‘Fort
Ross-Seaview’’ name applies to the
Northern Addition area as an additional
reason for establishing the petitioned-for
viticultural area as proposed in Notice
No. 34. In comment 10, Patrick Shabram
refers to his earlier argument from the
Shabram response that the names ‘‘Fort
Ross,’’ ‘‘Seaview,’’ or ‘‘Fort RossSeaview’’ lack viticultural significance
in relation to the Northern Addition
area, which is instead known as the
‘‘Annapolis area.’’ Noting that he was
unable to find any reference to the
Annapolis area as ‘‘Fort Ross,’’ Mr.
Shabram states that a number of recent
news articles refer to the Northern
Addition area as ‘‘Annapolis’’ in
conjunction with other sub-regions of
the west Sonoma Coast region,
including Fort-Ross Seaview and
Freestone-Occidental, further
underscoring his contention that the
‘‘Fort Ross’’ name is not used in
conjunction with the proposed Northern
Addition.
TTB Analysis
TTB has carefully considered the
comments received in response to
Notice Nos. 34 and 117 and has
reviewed all petition evidence and
subsequent documentation received in
support of, or in opposition to, the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area, including all comments and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
documentation relating to the proposed
Northern Addition.
Name Evidence
The evidence submitted both by the
Northern Commenters and by Mr.
Shabram raised significant questions
regarding whether the ‘‘Fort RossSeaview’’ name is applicable to the
proposed Northern Addition.
Based on TTB’s review of the
evidence provided by the Northern
Commenters to support their assertion
that the ‘‘Fort Ross’’ and ‘‘Fort Ross
Region’’ names are used in connection
with the Northern Addition area, it
appears that this use of these names
reflects very limited historic name usage
during the Russian occupation only
(1812–41); the evidence provided does
not include more recent references to
the area by those names. Regarding the
archaeology and ethnohistory study of
the Russian occupation of the Fort Ross
area that the Northern Addition petition
cites for a historical perspective of the
occupation’s effect on native
populations, TTB notes that the study
details the historic boundaries of the
occupation, but not the current
boundary lines of the Fort Ross
geographical area.
By contrast, the evidence that was
submitted in the Shabram response and
in comments 8 and 10 supports the
original petitioners’ contention in
response to the Northern Addition
petition that local growers as well as the
wine press recognize the Fort RossSeaview area as a separate and distinct
area from the Annapolis area, and that
the ‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview’’ geographical
place name is commonly used by local
growers to identify only the grapegrowing region in the immediate area
around Fort Ross and Seaview, but not
the neighboring region to the north.
Accordingly, TTB has determined that
the name evidence provided in the
Northern Addition petition does not
substantiate the Northern Commenters’
assertion that the ‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview,’’
‘‘Fort Ross,’’ or ‘‘Seaview’’ names
currently apply to the Northern
Addition, including the Annapolis area.
Boundary Line
As described in Notice No. 34, the
Shabram-Hirsch petitioned-for
boundary line largely incorporates the
hills and mountains located along the
Pacific coast near Fort Ross and Seaview
in western Sonoma County that are
mostly above 900 feet, which generally
marks the separation between the
higher, sunnier elevations of the
proposed area and the surrounding
lower, foggier elevations.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
TTB notes that the USGS maps show
a clear distinction between the Fort
Ross-Seaview area and the Annapolis
area to the north, with the Wheatfield
Fork of the Gualala River creating a
natural separation of the lower
elevations of the Northern Addition
from the steep, higher elevation terrain
of the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area. TTB also notes that the
northernmost vineyard in the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area is
more than 3 miles from the closest
vineyard in the Northern Addition, as
shown on an exhibit submitted by the
Northern Commenters. In contrast, as
pointed out in the Shabram response, all
of the vineyards within the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area are
located within an approximately 10
mile stretch, with no vineyard more
than 1.5 miles away from another
vineyard.
In addition, the evidence and
comments submitted in this case
demonstrate that there are two distinct
geographical differences between the
two areas that affect the proposed
boundary line and suggest that they
should be considered separate regions:
(1) Distance from the Pacific coastline;
and (2) elevation. Most locations within
the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area are located only 0.5 to
2.5 miles from the Pacific coastline,
whereas most locations within the
Northern Addition are located 4 to 6
miles from the coastline, as shown on
USGS maps. The elevation of the
vineyards in the two areas is also
significantly different; vineyards in the
Fort Ross-Seaview area are generally
located at elevations between 920 to
1,800 feet, which are above the coastal
fog according to local growers and the
Shabram-Hirsch petition, as compared
to the lower 560- to 890-foot elevations
of vineyards in the Northern Addition,
which are more influenced by the
marine fog.
Finally, TTB notes that the separate
identities of the Fort Ross-Seaview and
the Northern Addition (or Annapolis)
areas have been recognized in recent
newspaper articles and wine magazines.
As noted above, the Shabram response
and comments 8 and 10 cite to multiple
articles that refer to the two regions as
separate areas and describe their
different grape-growing conditions,
which further highlights the distinction
between the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area and the
Annapolis area to the north.
TTB thus finds that the boundary line
for the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area should not include the
Annapolis area to the north.
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Distinguishing Features
In Notice No. 34, the climate,
topography, and soils of the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area were
identified as the area’s distinguishing
features. In the Northern Addition
petition, the Northern Commenters
contend that these same distinctive
features are shared by the Northern
Addition area, thus warranting a
modification of the proposed boundary
line to include the Northern Addition.
More specifically, the Northern
Addition petition asserts that both the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area and the Northern Addition have a
Coastal Cool climate and similar soil
types, which is not challenged in the
Shabram response.
Based on the Shabram-Hirsch
petition, the Northern Addition petition,
the Shabram response, and the public
comments, TTB finds that there are
some similarities in the soil,
topography, and growing season climate
of the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area and the Northern
Addition. As discussed below, however,
given that both areas are wholly
contained within two larger existing
viticultural areas—the North Coast and
Sonoma Coast viticultural areas—some
general similarities in distinguishing
features can be expected, especially in
regard to the regional climate because
both the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area and the Northern
Addition have a Coastal Cool climate,
which is a distinguishing feature of the
surrounding Sonoma Coast viticultural
area according to T.D. ATF–253. In
addition, as noted in the Shabram
response, an expansion of the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area
based on the general grounds stated in
the Northern Addition petition could
warrant the inclusion of other nearby
coastal areas with broadly similar
features. Accordingly, the general
regional similarities described in the
Northern Addition petition would not
necessarily preclude a finding that the
microclimate and specific topography of
a particular area (such as the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area) are
sufficiently distinct from those of the
adjacent areas as to warrant its
recognition as a distinct viticultural
area.
While conceding that there are some
broad similarities in the climate and
topography between the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area and the
Northern Addition, the Shabram-Hirsch
petition, the Shabram response, and the
supporting comments also assert that
the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area has warmer growing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
conditions with increased solar
radiation due to the lack of fog at the
high elevation vineyards in the area.
The petitioners submitted both
statistical and anecdotal evidence in
support of their position.
First, the degree day data provided by
the petitioners in the Shabram-Hirsch
petition for three vineyards in the
proposed viticultural area shows that
the vineyards are in Winkler region II,
and that those vineyards on average had
degree days that were greater than or
equal to the average degree days for the
single vineyard for which data was
provided by the Northern Commenters.2
The average degree days for two of the
vineyards within the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area were
significantly greater than the average
degree days for the vineyard within the
Northern Addition, and the third
vineyard had an equal number of degree
days on average, suggesting that the
growing season temperatures in the
proposed viticultural area are somewhat
warmer than those in the Northern
Addition.
The pick date data provided by Ms.
Wong in the Shabram response further
supports the assertion that the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area has
warmer growing conditions than the
Northern Addition. According to the
data provided by Ms. Wong, for the
same growing seasons for the same
grapes, the vineyards located within the
proposed viticultural area had a pick
date that was significantly earlier than
the pick date for the vineyard located in
the Northern Addition. Ms. Wong
specifically attributed the later pick
dates in the Northern Addition to the
cooler temperatures in the lower
elevation vineyards in that area.
In addition, observations by local
grape growers as well as articles in the
wine press, as described above, further
indicate that the higher elevation
vineyards located in the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area are
warmer and receive more solar radiation
than the lower elevation vineyards in
the Northern Addition because the Fort
Ross-Seaview vineyards are located
above both the cooler temperature
inversion layer as well as the fog line.
As noted above, local growers in the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area claim that their vineyards benefit
from day-long solar radiation because
they are located above the fog line and
the cool inversion layer. This
distinction has also been recognized by
2 The degree day information from the ShabramHirsch petition was not included in Notice No. 34,
but it was restated in the Northern Addition
petition and is summarized above.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
77693
two winemakers in the Northern
Addition—Ms. Wong and Nick Peay—
with the latter contrasting his vineyards
in the cooler Annapolis area to the Fort
Ross-Seaview area based on the location
of his vineyards in (not above) the
inversion layer and the influence of
unobstructed fog in the area (Jon Bonne,
‘‘Winery of the Year: Peay Vineyards,’’
San Francisco Chronicle, December 27,
2009; Randy Caparoso, ‘‘Sonoma
Extreme,’’ Sommelier Journal, January
31, 2011, pp. 70–80).
Finally, TTB notes that the Northern
Commenters did not dispute the
distinction made in the Shabram
response relating to the location of the
Fort Ross-Seaview vineyards above the
fog line. Although the Northern
Addition petition states that the lower
elevation vineyards in the Northern
Addition are protected from the cooling
effects of marine fog intrusion by the
surrounding higher elevation ridgelines,
the evidence submitted with the
Northern Addition petition and with
other comments indicates that there is
still some fog intrusion in the area. By
contrast, the evidence submitted in
support of the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area demonstrates
that vineyards in that area are located
above the fog line, thereby resulting in
warmer growing season conditions,
increased solar radiation, and earlier
harvest dates for those vineyards. TTB
also notes that no other comments in
support of the Northern Addition or in
opposition to the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area were
submitted in response to Notice No.
117.
Accordingly, TTB concludes that the
evidence submitted in the ShabramHirsch petition, in the Shabram
response, and in the supporting
comments is sufficient to demonstrate
that the climate, topography, and other
distinguishing features of the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area are
sufficiently distinct from those of the
Northern Addition to warrant the
establishment of the new viticultural
area originally proposed in Notice No.
34.
Relationship to Existing Viticultural
Areas
As noted earlier in this preamble, the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area is located entirely within the
Sonoma Coast and North Coast
viticultural areas. The similarities and
differences between the proposed
viticultural area and the surrounding
Sonoma Coast and North Coast
viticultural areas are addressed in the
following paragraphs.
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
77694
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
North Coast Viticultural Area
The large North Coast viticultural area
was established by T.D. ATF–145
(published in the Federal Register at 48
FR 42973 on September 21, 1983) and
includes all or portions of Napa,
Sonoma, Mendocino, Solano, Lake, and
Marin Counties, California. TTB notes
that the North Coast viticultural area
encompasses approximately 40
established viticultural areas in
northern California, in addition to the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area. T.D. ATF–145 explicitly
recognizes that ‘‘[d]ue to the enormous
size of the North Coast, variations exist
in climatic features such as
temperatures, rainfall, and fog
intrusion.’’ (See 48 FR 42975–42976.)
The proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area shares the overall
distinguishing feature of the North Coast
viticultural area: The marine influence
from the Pacific Ocean that results in
cooler temperatures throughout the
region during the growing season. The
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area, however, is much more uniform in
its geographical features than the North
Coast viticultural area as a result of its
much smaller size. In this regard, T.D.
ATF–145 specifically states that
‘‘approval of this viticultural area does
not preclude approval of additional
areas, either wholly contained with the
North Coast, or partially overlapping the
North Coast’’ and that ‘‘smaller
viticultural areas tend to be more
uniform in their geographical and
climatic characteristics’’ (see 48 FR
42976). Thus, the proposal to establish
the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area is consistent with the
clear intent expressed in T.D. ATF–145.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Sonoma Coast Viticultural Area
The Sonoma Coast viticultural area
was established by T.D. ATF–253
(published in the Federal Register at 52
FR 22302 on June 11, 1987) within the
established North Coast viticultural
area. T.D. ATF–253 states that the
Sonoma Coast viticultural area includes
only the portion of Sonoma county
‘‘which is under very strong marine
climate influence.’’ According to T.D.
ATF–253, the Sonoma Coast viticultural
area has a ‘‘Coastal Cool’’ climate,
which is shared by the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area that
would be located within the Sonoma
Coast viticultural area.
Notwithstanding this broad climactic
similarity, the information before TTB
indicates that there are some differences
in the microclimate of the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area that
distinguish it from the surrounding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
Sonoma Coast viticultural area.
According to the Shabram-Hirsch
petition, although the petitioned-for
viticultural area lies a short distance
from the Pacific Ocean, the elevations of
the vineyards located within the
proposed viticultural area are generally
located above the fog line. The petition
also states that the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area is warmer
during the growing season than the
surrounding areas in the Sonoma Coast
viticultural area because it is located
above the cool temperature inversion
layer that results from the draining of
cooler air from the high elevation ridges
in the proposed viticultural area into the
surrounding lower elevations.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition also
notes that the topography of the Sonoma
Coast viticultural area includes large,
flat valley areas, gently rolling hilly
regions, several mountainous areas, and
a portion of the Russian River and its
watershed, as shown on the Sonoma
County USGS map. By contrast, the
topography of the proposed Fort RossSeaview viticultural area generally is
more uniform with mountains, steep
slopes, and elevations mostly between
920 to 1,800 feet, as shown on USGS
maps.
TTB Finding
After careful review of the ShabramHirsch petition, the Northern Addition
petition, the Shabram response, and the
comments received in response to
Notice Nos. 34 and 117, TTB finds that
the evidence submitted supports the
establishment of the 27,500-acre Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area within
the Sonoma Coast and North Coast
viticultural areas as originally proposed.
The evidence submitted by the Northern
Commenters to support modification of
the proposed boundary line to include
the Northern Addition, including the
Annapolis region, within the Fort RossSeaview viticultural area failed to
establish the requisite commonality of
name and distinguishing features. TTB
would be willing to consider a separate
petition for the establishment of a
viticultural area encompassing the
Annapolis region.
In addition, TTB has determined that
both ‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview’’ and ‘‘Ft. RossSeaview’’ are viticulturally significant.
After consideration of the concerns of
some commenters, TTB believes that it
would not be appropriate to find that
‘‘Fort Ross’’ or ‘‘Ft. Ross,’’ standing
alone, is viticulturally significant. TTB
also has determined that the name
‘‘Seaview,’’ standing alone, does not
have viticultural significance because of
its wide geographical usage, both
domestically and internationally.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Therefore, the establishment of the Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area will not
affect use of the names ‘‘Fort Ross,’’ ‘‘Ft.
Ross,’’ and ‘‘Seaview’’ on wine labels of
domestic and foreign producers.
Accordingly, under the authority of
the Federal Alcohol Administration Act
and part 4 of the TTB regulations, TTB
establishes the 27,500-acre ‘‘Fort RossSeaview’’ viticultural area in Sonoma
County, California, effective 30 days
from the publication date of this
document.
Boundary Description
See the narrative boundary
description of the viticultural area in the
regulatory text published at the end of
this document. In this final rule, TTB
altered some of the language in the
written boundary description provided
in the petition and published as part of
Notice No. 34. TTB made these
alterations in the written boundary
description language for clarity and to
conform the written boundary
description to the boundary of the
proposed viticultural area as marked on
the USGS maps submitted with the
petition.
Maps
The maps for determining the
boundary of the viticultural area are
listed below in the regulatory text.
Impact on Current Wine Labels
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits
any label reference on a wine that
indicates or implies an origin other than
the wine’s true place of origin. With the
establishment of this viticultural area
and its inclusion in part 9 of the TTB
regulations, ‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview’’ and
‘‘Ft. Ross-Seaview’’ are recognized
under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3) as terms of
viticultural significance. The text of the
new regulation clarifies this point.
Once this final rule becomes effective,
wine bottlers using ‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview’’
or ‘‘Ft. Ross-Seaview’’ in a brand name,
including a trademark or in another
label reference as to the origin of the
wine, will have to ensure that the
product is eligible to use ‘‘Fort RossSeaview’’ or ‘‘Ft. Ross-Seaview’’ as an
appellation of origin. The establishment
of the Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area will not affect any existing
viticultural area, and any bottlers using
Sonoma Coast or North Coast as an
appellation of origin or in a brand name
for wines made from grapes grown
within the Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area will not be affected by
the establishment of this new
viticultural area.
For a wine to be labeled with a
viticultural area name or with a brand
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
name that includes a viticultural area
name or other term identified as being
viticulturally significant in part 9 of the
TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of
the wine must be derived from grapes
grown within the area represented by
that name or other term, and the wine
must meet the other conditions listed in
27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not
eligible for labeling with the viticultural
area name or other viticulturally
significant term and that name or term
appears in the brand name, then the
label is not in compliance and the
bottler must change the brand name and
obtain approval of a new label.
Similarly, if the viticultural area name
or other viticulturally significant term
appears in another reference on the
label in a misleading manner, the bottler
would have to obtain approval of a new
label.
Different rules apply if a wine has a
brand name containing a viticultural
area name or other term of viticultural
significance that was used as a brand
name on a label approved before July 7,
1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
TTB certifies that this regulation will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. This regulation imposes no new
reporting, recordkeeping, or other
administrative requirement. Any benefit
derived from the use of a viticultural
area name is the result of a proprietor’s
efforts and consumer acceptance of
wines from that area. Therefore, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it
requires no regulatory assessment.
Drafting Information
Elisabeth C. Kann of the Regulations
and Rulings Division drafted this notice.
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9
Wine.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
The Regulatory Amendment
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, 27 CFR, chapter I, part 9, is
amended as follows:
PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL
AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
Subpart C—Approved American
Viticultural Areas
2. Subpart C is amended by adding
§ 9.221 to read as follows:
■
§ 9.221
Fort Ross-Seaview.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural
area described in this section is ‘‘Fort
Ross-Seaview’’. For purposes of part 4 of
this chapter, ‘‘Fort Ross-Seaview’’ and
‘‘Ft. Ross-Seaview’’ are terms of
viticultural significance.
(b) Approved maps. The five United
States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale
topographic maps used to determine the
boundary of the Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area are titled—
(1) Arched Rock, California-Sonoma
Co., 1977 edition;
(2) Fort Ross, California-Sonoma Co.,
1978 edition;
(3) Plantation, California-Sonoma Co.,
1977 edition;
(4) Annapolis, California-Sonoma Co.,
1977 edition; and
(5) Tombs Creek, California-Sonoma
Co., 1978 edition.
(c) Boundary. The Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area is located in Sonoma
County, California. The area’s boundary
is defined as follows:
(1) The beginning point is on the
Arched Rock map at the intersection of
the 920-foot elevation line and Meyers
Grade Road, T8N, R12W. From the
beginning point, proceed northwest on
Meyers Grade Road approximately 4.3
miles, on to the Fort Ross map, to the
intersection of Meyers Grade Road with
Seaview and Fort Ross Roads, T8N,
R12W; then
(2) Proceed northwest on Seaview
Road approximately 6.4 miles, on to the
Plantation map, to the intersection of
Seaview Road with Kruse Ranch and
Hauser Bridge Roads in the southeast
corner of section 28, T9N, R13W; then
(3) Proceed west on Kruse Ranch
Road approximately 0.2 mile to the
intersection of Kruse Ranch Road with
the 920-foot elevation line, T9N, R13W;
then
(4) Proceed generally north then east
along the 920-foot elevation line
approximately 2.2 miles to the
intersection of the elevation line with
Hauser Bridge Road, section 27, T9N,
R13W; then
(5) Proceed east on Hauser Bridge
Road approximately 1.5 miles to the
intersection of Hauser Bridge Road with
the 920-foot elevation line, section 23,
T9N, R13W; then
(6) Proceed generally northwest then
east along the 920-foot elevation line, on
to the Annapolis map, approximately
7.8 miles to the intersection of the
elevation line with an unnamed,
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
77695
unimproved road that forks to the south
from Tin Barn Road, section 8, T9N,
R13W; then
(7) Proceed east then north along the
unnamed, unimproved road to the
intersection of that road with Tin Barn
Road, section 8, T9N, R13W; then
(8) Proceed east in a straight line
approximately 1.55 miles to Haupt
Creek, section 10, T9N, R13W; then
(9) Proceed generally southeast along
Haupt Creek approximately 1.2 miles to
the western boundary of section 11,
T9N, R13W; then
(10) Proceed straight north along the
western boundary of section 11
approximately 0.9 mile to the northwest
corner of section 11 (near Buck Spring),
T9N, R13W; then
(11) Proceed straight east along the
northern boundary of section 11 and
then along the northern boundary of
section 12 approximately 1.1 miles to
the intersection of the section 12
northern boundary with an unnamed,
unimproved road along Skyline Ridge,
section 12, T9N, R13W;
(12) Proceed generally southeast along
the unnamed, unimproved road, on to
the Tombs Creek map, approximately
1.3 miles to the intersection of that road
with the 1,200-foot elevation line,
section 13, T9N, R13W; then
(13) Proceed generally southeast along
the 1,200-foot elevation line
approximately 0.6 mile to the
intersection of that elevation line with
Allen Creek, section 18, T9N, R12W;
then
(14) Proceed generally north along
Allen Creek approximately 0.2 mile to
the intersection of Allen Creek with the
920-foot elevation line, section 18, T9N,
R12W; then
(15) Proceed generally east and then
southeast along the meandering 920-foot
elevation line, on to the Fort Ross map,
to the intersection of that elevation line
with Jim Creek, section 21, T9N, R12W;
then
(16) Proceed generally southeast along
Jim Creek approximately 0.7 mile to the
northern boundary of section 27, T9N,
R12W; then
(17) Proceed east along the northern
boundary of section 27, T9N, R12W, to
the northeast corner of section 27; then
(18) Proceed south along the eastern
boundaries of sections 27 and 34, T9N,
R12W, and continue south along the
eastern boundaries of sections 3, 10, 15,
and 22, T8N, R12W, to Fort Ross Road;
then
(19) Proceed east along Fort Ross
Road to the intersection of Fort Ross
Road with the Middle Branch of Russian
Gulch Creek, and then proceed south
along that creek for approximately 1.2
miles to the intersection of that creek
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
77696
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
with the 920-foot elevation line, section
26, T8N, R12W; then
(20) Proceed generally south along the
meandering 920-foot elevation line
approximately 8.1 miles, passing back
and forth on the Fort Ross and Arched
Rock maps as the 920-foot elevation line
meanders north then south around the
West Branch of Russian Gulch,
returning to the beginning point, T8N,
R12W.
Signed: October 4, 2011.
John J. Manfreda,
Administrator.
Approved: October 20, 2011.
Timothy E. Skud,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Tax, Trade, and
Tariff Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011–32016 Filed 12–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB–2011–0005; T.D. TTB–99;
Ref: Notice No. 118]
RIN 1513–AB80
Establishment of the Naches Heights
Viticultural Area
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury Decision.
AGENCY:
This final rule establishes the
13,254-acre ‘‘Naches Heights’’
viticultural area in Yakima County,
Washington. TTB designates viticultural
areas to allow vintners to better describe
the origin of their wines and to allow
consumers to better identify wines they
may purchase.
DATES: Effective Date: January 13, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco
Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street
NW., Washington, DC 20220; telephone
(202) 453–1039, ext. 175.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol
Administration Act (FAA Act), 27
U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary
of the Treasury to prescribe regulations
for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits,
and malt beverages. The FAA Act
requires that these regulations should,
among other things, prohibit consumer
deception and the use of misleading
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:15 Dec 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
statements on labels, and ensure that
labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity
and quality of the product. The Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB) administers the regulations
promulgated under the FAA Act.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR
part 4) allows the establishment of
definitive viticultural areas and the use
of their names as appellations of origin
on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth
standards for the preparation and
submission of petitions for the
establishment or modification of
American viticultural areas and lists the
approved American viticultural areas.
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines
a viticultural area for American wine as
a delimited grape-growing region having
distinguishing features as described in
part 9 of the regulations and a name and
delineated boundary as established in
part 9 of the regulations. These
designations allow vintners and
consumers to attribute a given quality,
reputation, or other characteristic of a
wine made from grapes grown in an area
to its geographic origin. The
establishment of viticultural areas
allows vintners to describe more
accurately the origin of their wines to
consumers and helps consumers to
identify wines they may purchase.
Establishment of a viticultural area is
neither an approval nor an endorsement
by TTB of the wine produced in that
area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB
regulations outlines the procedure for
proposing an American viticultural area
and provides that any interested party
may petition TTB to establish a grapegrowing region as a viticultural area.
Section 9.12 (27 CFR 9.12) of the TTB
regulations prescribes standards for
petitions for the establishment or
modification of American viticultural
areas. Such petitions must include the
following:
• Evidence that the area within the
proposed viticultural area boundary is
nationally or locally known by the
viticultural area name specified in the
petition;
• An explanation of the basis for
defining the boundary of the proposed
viticultural area;
• A narrative description of the
features of the proposed viticultural area
that affect viticulture, such as climate,
geology, soils, physical features, and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
elevation, that make it distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas
outside the proposed viticultural area
boundary;
• A copy of the appropriate United
States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s)
showing the location of the proposed
viticultural area, with the boundary of
the proposed viticultural area clearly
drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of
the proposed viticultural area boundary
based on USGS map markings.
Petition for the Naches Heights
Viticultural Area
TTB received a petition from R. Paul
Beveridge, owner of Wilridge Winery
and Vineyard, to establish the ‘‘Naches
Heights’’ American viticultural area in
the State of Washington. The proposed
Naches Heights viticultural area is
located entirely within the larger
Columbia Valley viticultural area (27
CFR 9.74) of Washington and Oregon.
The city of Yakima lies to the southeast
of the proposed viticultural area in a
valley at lower elevations.
According to the petition, the
proposed Naches Heights viticultural
area encompasses 13,254 acres and
contains 105 acres of commercial
vineyards either producing or expecting
to produce wine grapes in the
foreseeable future.
Name Evidence
The ‘‘Naches Heights’’ name applies
to an elevated plateau area in Yakima
County, Washington, according to the
petition and USGS maps. The USGS
topographical maps of Naches, Selah,
Yakima West, and Wiley City are used
in the written boundary description in
the petition to define the boundary of
the proposed viticultural area. The area
between the Naches River and Cowiche
Creek is identified as ‘‘Naches Heights’’
on the USGS maps as well as on a
public lands map (Yakima Public Lands
Quadrangle map, 2001, Washington
State Department of Natural Resources),
according to the petition.
TTB notes that a search of the USGS
Geographical Names Information
System (GNIS) describes Naches Heights
as a summit in Yakima County,
Washington. Also, a general Internet
search for ‘‘Naches Heights’’ produced
many hits relating to the geographical
region in which the proposed
viticultural area falls.
The petition provided evidence of
local usage of the name ‘‘Naches
Heights,’’ including listings for the
‘‘Naches Heights Community Center’’
and the ‘‘Little Store on Naches
Heights’’ in The DexOnline.com, Qwest,
2008 Yakima Valley telephone
E:\FR\FM\14DER1.SGM
14DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77684-77696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32016]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
27 CFR Part 9
[Docket No. TTB-2011-0004; T.D. TTB-98; Re: Notice Nos. 34, 42, and
117]
RIN 1513-AA64
Establishment of the Fort Ross-Seaview Viticultural Area
AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Treasury decision establishes the 27,500-acre ``Fort
Ross-Seaview'' viticultural area in the western part of Sonoma County,
California. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to
better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to
better identify wines they may purchase.
DATES: Effective Date: January 13, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elisabeth C. Kann, Regulations and
Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G St.
NW., Room 200E, Washington, DC 20220; phone (202) 453-1039, ext. 002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on Viticultural Areas
TTB Authority
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act),
27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe
regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt
beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among
other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
statements on labels and ensure that labels provide the consumer with
adequate information as to the identity and quality of the product. The
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the
regulations promulgated under the FAA Act.
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) provides for the
establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their
names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine
advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets
forth standards for the preparation, submission, and approval of
petitions for the establishment or modification of American
viticultural areas and lists the approved American viticultural areas.
[[Page 77685]]
Definition
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i))
defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-
growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of
the regulations and a name and a delineated boundary as established in
part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and
consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other
characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its
geographic origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows
vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to
consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase.
Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an
endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Requirements
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure
for proposing the establishment of an American viticultural area and
provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a
grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Section 9.12 of the TTB
regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions for the
establishment or modification of American viticultural areas. Such
petitions must include the following:
Evidence that the area within the viticultural area
boundary is nationally or locally known by the viticultural area name
specified in the petition;
An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of
the viticultural area;
A narrative description of the features of the
viticultural area that affect viticulture, such as climate, geology,
soils, physical features, and elevation, that make it distinctive and
distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the viticultural area
boundary;
A copy of the appropriate United States Geological Survey
(USGS) map(s) showing the location of the viticultural area, with the
boundary of the viticultural area clearly drawn thereon; and
A detailed narrative description of the viticultural area
boundary based on USGS map markings.
The 2003 Fort Ross-Seaview Petition
Patrick Shabram, on behalf of himself and David Hirsch of Hirsch
Vineyards, submitted a petition in 2003 to establish the 27,500-acre
Fort Ross-Seaview American viticultural area in the western part of
Sonoma County, California (the Shabram-Hirsch petition). The Shabram-
Hirsch petition states that the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area, which contains 18 commercial vineyards on 506 acres, lies close
to the Pacific Ocean and about 65 miles north-northwest of San
Francisco. It lies entirely within the Sonoma Coast viticultural area
(27 CFR 9.116), which lies entirely within the multicounty North Coast
viticultural area (27 CFR 9.30). The proposed viticultural area would
not overlap, or otherwise affect, any other viticultural areas.
Name Evidence
In 1812, Fort Ross was established by Russian fur trappers on a
bluff, lying just west of the boundary of the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area and overlooking the Pacific Ocean, according
to the Shabram-Hirsch petition. The fort served as Russia's
southernmost outpost in the Pacific Northwest until it was abandoned in
1841. Since 1906, the site of the fort has been called the Fort Ross
State Historic Park; a reconstructed fort now is open to the public.
Seaview is a small, unincorporated community and real estate
development located along the Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1) and
located nearby and to the north of the park. Much of the Seaview
community is located within the proposed viticultural area.
Fort Ross Road winds through the southern portion of the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area, as shown on the 1978 USGS Fort
Ross quadrangle map; also shown on the map are Seaview Cemetery and,
extending northward in the proposed viticultural area, Seaview Road.
The intersection of Fort Ross and Seaview Roads lies to the northeast
of the Fort Ross State Historic Park (California State Automobile
Association, ``Mendocino and Sonoma Coast'' map, October 2000),
according to the Shabram-Hirsch petition.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states that the location of the
proposed viticultural area is commonly called ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' by
local grape growers. In a letter to Mr. Shabram explaining the origins
and usage of the proposed ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' name, Daniel
Schoenfeld, a grape grower and longtime resident, claimed that the Fort
Ross-Seaview name identifies the proposed viticultural area and
distinguishes the area from other geographic place names. Although all
three names, ``Fort Ross,'' ``Seaview,'' and ``Fort Ross-Seaview,''
have been used to identify the area, Mr. Schoenfeld noted an increased
incidence in use of the Fort Ross-Seaview name in recent years. For
example, the land within and near the proposed viticultural area in the
western part of Sonoma County has been called the ``Fort Ross-Seaview
district'' (``A Miraculous Intersection: A Short History of Viticulture
and Winegrowing in Western Sonoma County'' by Charles L. Sullivan,
2001), according to the Shabram-Hirsch petition.
Boundary Evidence
According to the Shabram-Hirsch petition, viticulture within the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area dates to 1817, when
Captain Leontii Andreianovich Hagemeister planted Peruvian grape
cuttings at Fort Ross. In 1973, Michael Bohan planted two acres of
grapes three miles east of Fort Ross, between Seaview Road and
Creighton Ridge. In 1974, he planted another 15 acres, and, in 1976, he
started selling his grape harvests to wineries in Sonoma and Santa Cruz
Counties, California. In 1980, co-petitioner David Hirsch planted a
vineyard between the 1,300- and 1,600-foot elevations in the Fort Ross-
Seaview area, according to his April 15, 2003 letter to Mr. Shabram
that was submitted as a supplemental exhibit to the petition. The
petition notes that, in spring 2003, the proposed viticultural area
contained 18 commercial vineyards on 506 acres.
According to the Shabram-Hirsch petition, the boundary of the
proposed viticultural area generally incorporates most of the
contiguous 920-foot elevation line. It also incorporates the ridges,
hills, and mountains at higher elevations located along the Pacific
coast near Fort Ross and Seaview in western Sonoma County. The 920-foot
elevation line and the higher elevations separate the sunnier proposed
viticultural area from the surrounding foggy areas, which are at lower
elevations.
The western portion of the boundary line of the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area is located between 0.5 and 2.5 miles from the
Pacific coastline and mostly at or above the 920-foot elevation line,
as shown on the USGS maps submitted with the Shabram-Hirsch petition.
Coincidentally, the San Andreas Rift Zone runs generally parallel to
and west of the western portion of the proposed boundary line and east
of the Pacific coast, as shown on the USGS maps.
In his 2003 letter, Mr. Hirsch also explained that, because coastal
fog does not rise above the 920-foot elevation line, the proposed
viticultural area receives more hours of solar radiation than the
surrounding lower elevations,
[[Page 77686]]
which cannot support successful viticulture. ``During the summer, fog
usually covers the Sonoma Coast during the morning and burns off about
noon,'' he wrote. ``This marine fog layer seldom rises above 900 feet,
which explains why there are no vineyards below this elevation in the
proposed area.'' In addition, according to the Shabram-Hirsch petition,
the moderating temperatures of the Pacific Ocean reduce the risk of
nighttime freeze and frost within the proposed viticultural area.
Distinguishing Features
The distinguishing features of the 27,500-acre proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area are topography, soils, and climate, according
to the Shabram-Hirsch petition.
Topography
The Shabram-Hirsch petition explains that vineyards within the
proposed viticultural area are generally located on rounded ridges with
summits extending above 1,200 feet. The USGS maps submitted with the
petition show that the proposed viticultural area consists of steep,
mountainous terrain made up of canyons, narrow valleys, ridges, and
800- to 1,800-foot peaks. The area, mainly at elevations of between 920
and 1,800 feet, has meandering, light-duty or unimproved roads and jeep
trails and scattered creeks and ponds.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition did not include a description of the
topography in the surrounding areas.
Soils
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states that the soils consist of
Yorkville, Boomer, Sobrante, Laughlin, and many other soils within the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area (Soil Survey of Sonoma
County, California, issued by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, 1990, pp. 44 and 45). Hugo soils are common in the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and in the mountain ranges of
Sonoma County and Mendocino County to the north of the proposed
viticultural area. Hugo soils are well drained, very gravelly loams
derived from sandstone and shale (see publication cited above).
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states that some soils in the proposed
viticultural area derived from metamorphic rocks and, to a lesser
extent, igneous rocks, but most soils derived from sedimentary rocks
(untitled maps, by M.E. Huffman and C.F. Armstrong, California
Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, reprinted
2000). The petition also states that the sedimentary rocks in the
proposed viticultural area contrast with the relatively younger
sedimentary rocks that are the parent material of the soils in the area
to the west and that coincide with the San Andreas Rift Zone.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition did not include any soils data for the
surrounding areas, except for the area to the west mentioned above.
Climate
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states that generally the proposed
viticultural area is not directly affected by marine fog. In areas
generally above 900 feet in elevation, the climate is influenced by
longer periods of sunlight and is warmer than that in the surrounding
land below 900 feet. The prevalence of marine fog below the 900-foot
elevation line causes the surrounding, lower areas to be cooler and to
have a shorter growing season than that in the proposed viticultural
area.
According to the Shabram-Hirsch petition, the coastal fog and its
effects on agriculture were studied for more than 3 decades by Robert
Sisson, former County Director and Farm Advisor for Sonoma County
(``Guidelines for Assessing the Viticultural Potential of Sonoma
County: An Analysis of the Physical Environment,'' M.A. thesis by Carol
Ann Lawson, University of California, Davis, 1976). Mr. Sisson mapped
the diverse climate of the lowermost, foggy coastal areas that surround
some of the higher, sunnier elevations, according to the petition.
TTB notes that the Sisson system of climatic classification takes
into account the amount of time that a vine is actually exposed to a
certain temperature. The system uses such terms as ``Coastal Cool'' and
``Coastal Warm,'' which incorporate a method of heat summation that
takes into account not only the highs and lows but the number of hours
at which temperatures remain in the highly effective photosynthesis
range of 70 to 90[emsp14][deg]F. ``Coastal Cool'' is designated as
having a cumulative duration of less than 1,000 hours between
70[emsp14][deg]F and 90[emsp14][deg]F in April through October.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states that the proposed viticultural
area is ``Coastal Cool'' (``Climate Types of Sonoma County,'' map,
Vassen, 1986). The area can support viticulture, in contrast to the
surrounding, lower-elevation, cooler, less sunny, marine climatic areas
that cannot sustain viticulture, according to the petition.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition also states that the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area is in the heaviest fog intrusion area,
spanning the entire coast of Sonoma County (``Lines of Heaviest and
Average Maximum Fog Intrusion for Sonoma County,'' map, by Carol Ann
Lawson, 1976). However, TTB notes that this map does not detail the
heavy fog line from the contrasting warmer and sunnier microclimates at
higher elevations, such as that which exists in the proposed
viticultural area.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states that the water temperature of
the ocean off the Pacific coast to the west of the proposed
viticultural area rarely rises above 60 degrees Fahrenheit. From mid-
spring to fall, a fogbank is created offshore that moves inland through
low-elevation mountain gaps and valleys. The fog, rarely rising above
the 900-foot elevation line, cools temperatures on shore and reduces
sunshine in the early mornings and late afternoons at elevations of 900
feet or less. Consequently, the proposed viticultural area, which lies
mainly between the 920- and 1,800-foot elevation lines, receives less
fog and more sun during the growing season than the surrounding, lower
areas.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition compares the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area to the southwestern portion of the Sonoma Coast and
nearby Russian River Valley viticultural areas. Those areas, to the
southwest and to the northeast, respectively, have cool and
comparatively less sunny climates because they generally receive marine
fog and do not lie above the fog line.
The Shabram-Hirsch petition states that temperatures are roughly
comparable during the coolest part of the year at Fort Ross State
Historic Park at the 112-foot elevation level, just west of the
proposed boundary, and at Campmeeting Ridge in Seaview at the 1,220-
foot elevation level, located within the proposed viticultural area
(``Unique Climatic and Environmental Characteristics of the Proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview Viticultural Area,'' 2001, by Patrick L. Shabram).
However, daily high temperatures during the growing season May through
October and daily low temperatures in June and from August through
October are warmer on the ridge than at the park, according to the
petition. Significant growing season temperature variations occur at
points between these lower and higher elevations (see publication cited
above).
Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received
TTB published Notice No. 34 regarding the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area in the Federal Register on March 8, 2005 (70
FR 11174). In Notice No. 34, TTB invited
[[Page 77687]]
comments from all interested members of the public on or before May 9,
2005. In response to a request from an industry member, TTB
subsequently extended the comment period of Notice No. 34 from May 12,
2005 until June 8, 2005 (see Notice No. 42, published in the Federal
Register at 70 FR 25000 (May 12, 2005)).
In Notice No. 34, TTB specifically invited comments regarding
whether ``Ft. Ross-Seaview,'' ``Fort Ross,'' ``Ft. Ross,'' and
``Seaview'' should be designated as terms of viticultural significance
in addition to the full ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' name. TTB also solicited
comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary,
climatic, and other required information submitted in support of the
petition.
Comments Received in Response to Notice No. 34
TTB received seven comments in response to Notice No. 34. Two
comments support the petition without qualification, and a third
commenter supports the proposed viticultural area but expressed concern
about a potential conflict with his brand name if ``Fort Ross'' or Ft.
Ross'' alone are designated as terms of viticultural significance. Four
additional comments oppose the petition on the ground that the proposed
boundary line excludes a region to the north that the commenters
contend has similar geographical features as the petitioned-for
viticultural area.
The commenters in support of Notice No. 34 include co-petitioner
David Hirsch, of Hirsch Vineyards, who has been growing wine grapes at
a vineyard at an elevation of 1,500 feet in the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area since 1980. In comment 2, Mr. Hirsch explains
the importance of the area's marine-influenced climate, soils, and
topography in producing premium grapes in the region. In comment 4, two
local grape-growers that have been operating their vineyard on a 1,500-
foot elevation ridgetop in the proposed viticultural area since 1982
explain that grape growing is part of the heritage of the Fort Ross-
Seaview region. Both comments 2 and 4 emphasize that the establishment
of the proposed viticultural area would help consumers identify wines
made from grapes grown in the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area.
In addition, in comment 3, a local vineyard and winery owner
generally supports the establishment of the proposed viticultural area,
but the owner opposes the designation of ``Fort Ross'' and ``Ft. Ross''
as viticulturally significant terms because it would create a conflict
with the owner's trademarked ``Fort Ross Winery'' and ``Fort Ross
Vineyard'' names, which the owner states would cause irreparable
economic hardship and potentially cause consumer confusion.
Four additional comments, Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 7, oppose Notice No. 34
based on the proposed boundary line and propose an alternate boundary
line that would include an additional area to the north. According to
the four opposing commenters, all of whom own vineyards and/or wineries
in the area to the north of the proposed viticultural area (the
Northern Commenters), the vineyards in that area have the same
distinguishing features and characteristics as the vineyards located
within the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area to the south.
The Northern Commenters contend that the northern portion of the
proposed boundary line should extend northward to Buckeye Creek, which
would include a region generally referred to as the ``Annapolis area.''
In addition, two of the Northern Commenters also express concern about
the use of the ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' name, explaining that the ``Fort
Ross'' name is used by the Fort Ross Winery and that the ``Seaview''
name is used by an Australian sparkling wine bottler.
In comment 5, one of the Northern Commenters suggested that TTB
delay establishing the Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area to allow the
growers in the northern area the opportunity to gather and submit
documentation supporting a northern expansion of the 27,500-acre
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area (the Northern Addition).
TTB agreed to a delay, and on November 11, 2005, the Northern
Commenters submitted a petition, USGS maps, and a written boundary
description for a proposed expansion of the 27,500-acre proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area to include the Northern Addition (the
Northern Addition petition).
The Northern Addition Petition
In the Northern Addition petition, the Northern Commenters
petitioned for a 15,726-acre expansion of the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area, which included 28 commercial vineyards on
about 900 acres as of November 11, 2005. The documentation included a
narrative explaining the basis for the proposal as well as supporting
evidence relating to the historic name usage and distinguishing
features of the Northern Addition. According to the Northern Addition
petition, the Northern Addition is well-suited for commercial
viticulture because the area vineyards, which are located at inland
elevations between 700 and 900 feet, are protected from marine fog
intrusion by parallel coastal ridges at elevations of 920 feet or
higher. The coastal ridges effectively buffer the cooling fog of the
Pacific Ocean from inland vineyards, according to the Northern Addition
petition.
Name Evidence: The Northern Addition petition states that, since
the Russian occupation of northern California, the ``Fort Ross'' name
has continuously been used to identify the Sonoma County coastline
north of the Russian River (including the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area and the proposed Northern Addition).
Citing historical evidence relating to the Russian occupation's
effect on native populations in the early and mid-1800s and the
development of the area surrounding Fort Ross by George Washington Call
in the mid-1870s, the Northern Addition petition contends that the
historically-recognized ``Fort Ross Region'' extends northward from the
Russian River to approximately the Gualala River and six to nine miles
inland from the Pacific coastline, and that region includes the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area as well as the proposed
Northern Addition (``The Archeology and Ethnohistory of Fort Ross,
California,'' by Kent G. Lightfoot, Thomas A. Wake, and Ann M. Schiff,
Archaeological Research Facility, University of California at Berkeley,
1991). The Northern Addition petition further notes that the natural
environment of the ``Fort Ross Region'' extends, south to north, from
the small coastal town of Jenner, located at the mouth of the Russian
River, to the town of Gualala, located at the mouth of the Gualala
River.
The Northern Addition petition adds that the ``Seaview''
geographical place name identifies the tiny coastal community of
Seaview and Seaview Road, which the Northern Addition petition notes is
``some distance'' from the vineyards in the Northern Addition. The
Northern Addition petition points out, however, that some vineyards in
the 27,500-acre proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area are also
located at similar distances from the Seaview community.
Given the distance of the Northern Addition from the Seaview
community, the Northern Commenters proposed that the ``Fort Ross''
portion of the proposed viticultural area name be modified by an
alternative geographical place name in lieu of ``Seaview'' that would
better describe the proposed viticultural area with the 15,726-acre
Northern Addition, such as ``Stewarts Point'' or ``Annapolis.'' TTB
notes that ``Stewarts
[[Page 77688]]
Point'' and ``Annapolis'' are geographical place names that refer to
areas located in or near the Northern Addition and are outside the
boundary line of the 27,500-acre proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area. Alternatively, the Northern Commenters suggested
adding ``Region'' to the ``Fort Ross'' name or combining ``Fort Ross''
with ``Sonoma Coast'' or ``Northern Sonoma Coast.''
Boundary Evidence: According to the Northern Addition petition, the
proposed boundary line expansion is based on the geographical features
of the 15,726-acre Northern Addition, which are similar to the
distinguishing geographical features of the proposed 27,500-acre Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area.
The Northern Addition petition explains that the western portion of
the boundary line for the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area
would combine with the western portion of the proposed boundary line
for the Northern Addition. The combined boundary line follows a high-
elevation ridgeline that limits the inland intrusion of cooling marine
fog off the Pacific Ocean. The northernmost portion of the proposed
boundary line for the Northern Addition parallels the 600- to 400-foot
elevations in the area of Buckeye Creek, a tributary of the South Fork
of the Gualala River, as shown on USGS maps. The Northern Addition
petition states that Buckeye Creek forms a natural boundary line
between higher elevation areas to the south and north. The eastern
portion of the proposed boundary line for the Northern Addition follows
a 600-foot elevation line and roads on ridgelines between the generally
mountainous coastal terrain and the very rugged interior mountains to
the east. To the southeast, the proposed boundary line for the Northern
Addition joins with the northeastern portion of the boundary line of
the 27,500-acre proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area, according
to the Northern Addition petition.
Distinguishing Features: The Northern Addition petition contends
that the proposed Northern Addition shares the same distinguishing
features of topography, climate, and soils as the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area.
Topography: The Northern Addition petition states that the
topography is similar in both the 27,500-acre proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area and the Northern Addition. According to the
Northern Addition petition, the topography of the proposed Northern
Addition consists of steep mountains with 5 to 70 percent slopes,
1,500-foot ridgetops, and valleys. In addition, the first ridgeline
inland from the Pacific Ocean, which buffers coastal fog, forms the
western portion of the boundary line of both the 27,500-acre proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and the proposed Northern Addition,
according to the boundary descriptions.
Climate: The Northern Addition petition asserts that the 27,500-
acre proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and the proposed
Northern Addition share a similar climate, which is the primary
defining feature of the area according to the Northern Commenters.
The Northern Addition petition compares the data on average annual
heat accumulation, measured in growing degree days \1\ (GDD), for three
vineyards in the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area to
similar data for a vineyard located in the proposed Northern Addition.
The data for the three vineyards in the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area originated from the Shabram-Hirsch petition.
According to the data, which is summarized in the below table, all of
the vineyards are located in Winkler climatic region II, which has
2,501-3,000 GDDs per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the Winkler climatic classification system, annual heat
accumulation during the growing season, measured in annual GDD,
defines climatic regions. One GDD accumulates for each degree
Fahrenheit that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees, the
minimum temperature required for grapevine growth. Climatic region I
has less than 2,500 GDD per year; region II, 2,501 to 3,000; region
III, 3,001 to 3,500; region IV, 3,501 to 4,000; and region V, 4,001
or more (``General Viticulture,'' by Albert J. Winkler, University
of California Press, 1974, pages 61-64).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual
Vineyard Location degree days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan........................ 27,500-acre proposed 2,605
Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area.
Campmeeting Ridge............. 27,500-acre proposed 2,615
Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area.
Nobles........................ 27,500-acre proposed 2,580
Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area.
La Crema...................... Northern Addition..... 2,580
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, according to the Northern Addition petition and the
above data, all four vineyards have a Coastal Cool climate using the
Sisson system of climactic classification cited in the Shabram-Hirsch
petition, in which areas with degree day accumulations in the higher
Region I or lower Region II range are considered to be Coastal Cool.
According to the Northern Addition petition, a map submitted with
the Shabram-Hirsch petition that is based on Sisson's research also
shows that all of the vineyards in the proposed Northern Addition are
located within the Coastal Cool classification, including the lower
560- to 890-foot elevations of the vineyards in the Northern Addition
(Vassen, ``Climate Types of Sonoma County Map,'' 1986). The Northern
Addition petition contends that the Marine Cold and Coastal Cool
climate classifications are not rigidly divided at the 900-foot
elevation line, and that the vineyards at the lower, 560- to 890-foot
elevations in the proposed Northern Addition receive adequate solar
radiation for grape ripening because they are surrounded by a higher
elevation ridge to the west that decreases the frequency of fog
intrusion and its concomitant cooling effects.
The Northern Addition petition also provides a comparison of
growing season temperatures for Fort Ross State Historic Park (located
at the 112-foot elevation to the west of the proposed viticultural
area) and La Crema Vineyard (located in the proposed Northern Addition)
to establish that both the Northern Addition and the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area have warmer temperatures during the
growing season as compared to the coastal, lower elevation Fort Ross
State Historic Park. As with the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area, the data show that the Northern Addition has average
temperatures that are roughly comparable to those at Fort Ross State
Historic Park when little fog occurs during the coolest part of the
year and in the evenings during the growing season. By contrast, and
similar to the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area, the
Northern Addition has daytime high temperatures during the growing
season that are significantly higher than the growing season daytime
high
[[Page 77689]]
temperatures at Fort Ross State Historic Park. The Northern Addition
petitioners attribute these significantly higher temperatures to the
warming effect of solar radiation during the daytime that is similar to
the growing season warming that occurs in the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area.
The Northern Addition petition explains that the terrain of the
region contributes to its distinctive climate because the high
elevation ridge along the Pacific coastline blocks or slows the
intrusion of marine fog currents flowing inland. According to the
Northern Addition petition, the growing season climate of the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and the Northern Addition are
similar because they both are affected by the fog-buffering caused by
the coastal ridges and hills along the northernmost portions of the
Sonoma Coast viticultural area. The Northern Addition petition further
notes that the mountainous terrain in the region causes nighttime cool
air to drain from the surrounding ridges and hillsides to the lower
elevations, thereby extending the growing season on the higher ridges
and hillsides and reducing the risk of springtime frost in both the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and the proposed Northern
Addition.
Soils: The Northern Addition petition states that the soils in both
the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and the proposed
Northern Addition are varied, well drained, and nonalluvial (Soil
Survey of Sonoma County, California, 1972, issued by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service).
Goldridge, Yorkville, Josephine, and Laughlin soils are common in both
areas, and Hugo soils make up 54 percent of the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area and 45 percent of the proposed Northern
Addition (see publication cited above), according to the Northern
Addition petition.
Shabram Response to the Northern Addition Petition
Following the submission of the Northern Addition petition, Patrick
Shabram, co-author of the Shabram-Hirsch petition, submitted additional
documentation to support the establishment of the 27,500-acre Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area as originally proposed (the Shabram
response).
As a general matter, the Shabram response emphasizes that the
Northern Addition area, which is known as the Annapolis region, is a
grape growing area distinct and separate from the petitioned-for Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area, notwithstanding some similar
characteristics. The Shabram response further contends that the
arguments presented in favor of the Northern Addition, especially the
argument premised on the similar Coastal Cool climate classification in
both regions, are equally applicable to other nearby California coastal
regions. Accordingly, the Shabram response argues that an expansion of
the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area based on the grounds
stated in the Northern Addition petition would warrant a larger
expansion into other neighboring regions, including the established
Mendocino Ridge viticultural area (27 CFR 9.158) to the north,
established by T.D. ATF-392 (published in the Federal Register at 62 FR
55512 (October 27, 1997)), and the proposed Freestone-Occidental
viticultural area (a petition under TTB review) to the south, both of
which generally share a similar Coastal Cool climate as a result of
coastal fog and have some similar soil types. Such an expansion would
create a larger, regional viticultural area more akin to the
established Sonoma Coast viticultural area as compared to the smaller,
local viticultural area that was sought by the Fort Ross-Seaview
petitioners.
Name Evidence: The Shabram response states that the ``Fort Ross-
Seaview'' name is not associated with the Northern Addition area, and
it argues that use of the name to identify the viticulture of the
Northern Addition would be confusing to consumers. According to the
Shabram response, the Northern Addition area is instead recognized as a
separate geographical region known as ``Annapolis,'' which is the
reason why the area was not considered for inclusion when the Fort
Ross-Seaview growers first considered petitioning for a viticultural
area. The Shabram response notes that the Northern Addition
petitioners' proposed amendment of the ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' name to
either ``Fort Ross-Annapolis'' or ``Sonoma Coast Mountains'' for the
proposed expanded viticultural area (including the Northern Addition)
shows that the name lacks significance in the Annapolis area.
As explained in the Shabram response, the Fort Ross-Seaview
vineyard owners considered various other potential names when
discussing the best geographical name for their proposed viticultural
area, including but not limited to Fort Ross, Fort Ross Ridges,
Seaview, and Seaview Ridges (``California's New Frontier,'' by Steve
Heimoff, ``Wine Enthusiast,'' July 2001). According to the Shabram
response, the area vineyard owners ultimately agreed that the area is
called both the ``Fort Ross area'' and the ``Seaview area,'' and that
both names are significant to local viticulture (see publication cited
above), resulting in the proposed ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' name.
In further support of the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview name, the
Shabram response quotes two Fort Ross vineyard owners regarding the
significance of the name. One area grower, Lester Schwartz, stated in a
supplemental exhibit to the petition that ``[t]he petitioners chose
`Fort Ross-Seaview' because that is what locals call the area which
produces fine grapes and wine'' (Schwartz letter to TTB, dated May 4,
2005). Another local grower, Daniel Schoenfeld, stated in his 2004
letter to Mr. Shabram about the ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' name that ``[t]he
region that constitutes the proposed AVA is known as the `Fort Ross'
area, as the `Seaview' area, and as the `Fort Ross-Seaview' area. All
three names have been used interchangeably to describe the area. `Fort
Ross-Seaview' has been used for a number of years in verbal
communication to eliminate confusion associated with the different
names'' (in conversation with TTB personnel, May 18, 2004).
The Shabram response further states that writers consistently do
not include the Northern Addition (or Annapolis) region when referring
to the Fort Ross-Seaview area, or vice versa. As noted in the
discussion of the Shabram-Hirsch petition above, Charles Sullivan used
the ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' name to refer to the area, which was before
the local growers reached a consensus on the name of the proposed
viticultural area, and the Shabram Response notes that Mr. Sullivan
does not mention Annapolis or the Northern Addition when discussing
Fort Ross-Seaview viticulture. In addition, the Shabram response points
out that the Friends of the Gualala River Web site (available at https://gualalariver.org/) has a map that shows the location of local
Annapolis vineyards, but it does not include the vineyards in the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area to the south.
The Shabram response also notes that the location of the vineyards
of two of the Northern Addition petitioners, Brice Jones and Don
Hartford, has been referred to as ``Annapolis'' rather than ``Fort
Ross-Seaview'': Mr. Jones was described as an ``Annapolis vintner'' in
a news article (``Brice Jones, Artesa Open Routes Across Land for
Animals: Annapolis Winegrowers to Establish Wildlife Corridors,'' by
Carol Benfell, [Santa Rosa] Press Democrat, September 11, 2001); and
the Hartford Family
[[Page 77690]]
Winery notes that the Lands Edge Vineyards 2007 Pinot Noir ``is sourced
predominantly from our estate's Annapolis vineyard'' (https://www.hartfordwines.com/wines/pinotnoir/landsedge.html).
Boundary Evidence: The Shabram response contends that there are
three geographically distinctive viticultural areas in coastal Sonoma
County: Annapolis (north), Fort Ross-Seaview (middle), and Freestone-
Occidental (south).
As stated in ``A Wine Journey along the Russian River,'' a source
cited in the Shabram response, Sonoma County coastal viticulture ``is
clustered in three areas close to the shore: Annapolis up north, near
the Mendocino County line; Fort Ross in the center; and (merging these
two areas into one) Occidental Ridges and Freestone, to the south
(which some people refer to as the Bodega plantings)'' (Steve Heimoff,
University of California Press, 2005, pages 234-5). The Shabram
response also refers to a map that depicts the separate vineyard
clusters in the Annapolis, Fort Ross-Seaview, and Freestone-Occidental
areas (``Sonoma Coast,'' map no. 11, in ``North American Pinot Noir,''
by John Winthrop Haeger, University of California Press, 2004) and
notes that none of the Fort Ross-Seaview wine growers that Mr. Heimoff
specifically names in his book are located in the Annapolis area of the
map.
The Shabram response explains that the Fort Ross-Seaview vineyards
are clustered together along several higher ridges in close proximity
to the Pacific Ocean, unlike the vineyards generally clustered at the
lower elevations further inland around the town of Annapolis to the
north. The Wheatfield Fork of the Gualala River is located between the
two clusters of vineyards on the ridges, and the area adjacent to the
Fork is characterized by fog intrusion and a steep valley that drops to
an elevation of 160 feet. Commercial viticulture is difficult, if not
impossible, in the area adjacent to the Wheatfield Fork because of the
fog and the steep terrain, according to the Shabram response.
The Shabram response also states that the Annapolis area consists
of the ridges surrounding the Wheatfield Fork and Buckeye and
Grasshopper Creeks (located in the proposed Northern Addition). By
contrast, the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area is located
to the south of the Annapolis area and consists of a series of ridges
that are separated from the surrounding areas by the Wheatfield Fork
and the South Fork of the Gualala River and tributary creeks (``North
American Pinot Noir,'' page 92). The Shabram response states that
further south, the Freestone-Occidental area contains ridges that are
separated from one another by tributaries of Salmon Creek (see
publication cited above). The Shabram response also notes that, in the
Northern Addition, the vineyard closest to the northernmost vineyard in
the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area is approximately 3.5
miles away (measured in a straight line), whereas all of the vineyards
within the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area are located
within an approximately 10 mile stretch, with no vineyard more than 1.5
miles away from another vineyard.
Distinguishing Features: The Shabram response states that subtle
climatic and geographic differences exist between the Annapolis and
Fort Ross-Seaview regions. Although both areas broadly share a Coastal
Cool climate classification, the Shabram response explains that there
are differences in the nature of the coastal cooling in each area,
which are largely based on the higher elevations of vineyards in the
Fort Ross-Seaview area as compared to those in the Annapolis area. As a
result, each area receives different amounts of total solar radiation,
which in turn affects the ripening times for grapes in those areas,
according to the Shabram response.
The Shabram response states that vineyards in the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area are located at high elevations above the
fog line, so they receive a full day of solar radiation. David Hirsch,
Joan and Walt Flowers, and Daniel Schoenfeld, all local growers in the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area, attested to Mr. Shabram
and to Wine News magazine (Jeff Cox, ``Cool Climate Pioneers--Sonoma's
Ridgetop Winegrowers Scale New Heights,'' Wine News, August/September
2002) that foggy conditions transition to clear skies beginning at the
900-foot elevations of the Fort Ross-Seaview area. Although the 900-
foot elevation line does not mark an absolute break in the fog, it is
the best available evidence of a fog ceiling, according to the Shabram
response.
Further, the Shabram response states that, although the convection
and conduction of fog from the Pacific Ocean cool both the Annapolis
and Fort Ross-Seaview areas, the vineyards in the Annapolis area are
cooler because they are situated at lower elevations, where partial fog
reduces total solar radiation, despite the presence of a ridgeline to
the west that buffers the fog. For example, the Shabram response quotes
a description of Peay Vineyards (located in the Northern Addition), in
which it is described as sitting ``on a hilltop that is not way up in
the air, but just at the top of the fog level, low enough to be very
cool, but high enough not to be too cool and wet for grapes'' (https://www.peayvineyards.com/). [TTB notes that Peay Vineyards is located at
an elevation of approximately 755 feet, as shown on a topographical map
provided by the Northern Commenters.] By comparison, the vineyards in
the Fort Ross-Seaview area typically are located at higher elevations
that are above the fog inversion layer, so they are therefore less
cooled by fog and receive greater solar radiation warming while still
receiving some cooling via conduction due to the close proximity of the
fog layer, according to the Shabram response.
The Shabram response also provides a statement from Vanessa Wong, a
grape grower and winemaker at Peay Vineyards who has worked with
vineyards located in both the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural
area and the Northern Addition for the past nine vintages and has also
made wines from grapes grown in both areas. Ms. Wong explains that the
inversion layer of cool ocean fog persists throughout the day in her
vineyards in the Northern Addition. According to Ms. Wong, coastal
breezes blow cool air along unobstructed land between sea level and
1,000 feet in altitude, which is the mean top of the inversion layer.
By contrast, vineyards located above the much cooler inversion layer--
including vineyards located along the Fort Ross-Seaview ridges and
areas further inland--have warmer temperatures.
Ms. Wong further states that grape maturity dates differ
significantly between vineyards in the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area and those in the Northern Addition. According to Ms.
Wong, for the same vintage and grape variety, the harvest dates in the
Northern Addition are consistently later than those in proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area, adding that ripening generally occurs
10 to 14 days earlier in the Fort Ross-Seaview area than at the lower-
elevation Peay Vineyards. Ms. Wong attributes the later ripening in the
Annapolis area to the cooler temperatures in that region: ``I believe
that the pick dates for the Annapolis area are later than those of the
Fort Ross-Seaview area because the Annapolis area is cooler than the
Fort Ross-Seaview area.''
The following table, which was provided by Ms. Wong, illustrates
the difference in pick dates between the Fort Ross-Seaview and
Annapolis areas and shows that, for the years that Ms.
[[Page 77691]]
Wong provided data, the pick dates of the vineyards in the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area are significantly earlier than
those of the vineyards in the Northern Addition area:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pick date
Variety Fort Ross- Pick date Annapolis Pick date difference
Seaview Vineyard Vineyard (days)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinot Noir-Pommard.......... Hirsch.......... 9/12/02 Peay............ 9/23/02 11
Chardonnay.................. Hirsch.......... 9/29/06 Peay............ 10/9/06 11
Pinot Noir 777.............. Nobles.......... 9/4/09 Peay............ 9/18/09 14
Chardonnay.................. Hirsch.......... 9/10/09 Peay............ 10/6/09 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determination To Reopen Public Comment Period
Given the conflicting evidence provided by the original petitioner
and by the Northern Commenters with respect to the distinguishing
features and boundary line of the proposed viticultural area, as well
as the length of time that had elapsed since TTB published Notice No.
34 and solicited public comments on the proposed establishment of the
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area, TTB determined that it was
appropriate to reopen the comment period for Notice No. 34 before
taking any final action regarding the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area.
Accordingly, TTB reopened the comment period for Notice No. 34 for
an additional 45 days on April 21, 2011, with comments due on or before
June 6, 2011 (see Notice No. 117, published in the Federal Register at
76 FR 22338). Notice No. 117 did not contain the details of the
northern expansion documentation (referred to here as the ``Northern
Addition petition'') or of the Shabram response due to the length of
those documents, but TTB informed the public in Notice No. 117 that
those documents, as well as the original Shabram-Hirsch petition,
Notice No. 34, and the original comments received in response to Notice
No. 34, were posted for public viewing on Regulations.gov, the Federal
e-rulemaking portal.
In Notice No. 117, TTB specifically invited comments on the
following issues: (1) Whether TTB should establish the proposed ``Fort
Ross-Seaview'' viticultural area; (2) the sufficiency and accuracy of
the proposed viticultural area's name, ``Fort Ross-Seaview,'' including
comments on the name's applicability to the proposed Northern Addition
and any alternative names for the proposed viticultural area and the
Northern Addition area; and (3) the appropriateness of the proposed
viticultural area's boundary line and whether the proposed viticultural
area is limited to the area within the boundary line described in
Notice No. 34 or if it also extends further to the north as stated by
the Northern Commenters.
Comments Received in Response to Notice No. 117
TTB received three comments in response to Notice No. 117, all
strongly supporting the establishment of the Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area as proposed in Notice No. 34. Two of the comments,
Nos. 8 and 9, were submitted by local growers who had previously
submitted supporting comments in response to Notice No. 34, Lester
Schwartz of Fort Ross Vineyard & Winery LLC and David Hirsch,
respectively; the third comment, No. 10, was submitted by Patrick
Shabram. There were no comments submitted by the Northern Commenters in
response to Notice No. 117.
The supporting comments state their opposition to the proposed
Northern Addition based on the distinctiveness of the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area and their contention that the Northern
Addition (or the Annapolis area) is a separate, viticulturally distinct
area. Comment 9 specifically notes the proposed viticultural area's
distinctiveness based on its location, soils, and climate, stating that
the area's climate is influenced by its close proximity to the ocean as
well as its altitude. In comment 10, Patrick Shabram reiterates his
prior contention that the main distinction between the proposed
viticultural area and the Northern Addition is that the vineyards
located within the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area are
located above or in close proximity to the intruding coastal fog, as
compared to the Northern Addition vineyards, which are typically below
the fog line. Mr. Shabram adds that various local grape growers have
attested to the fact that vineyards within the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area are located above the fog, an assertion that
Mr. Shabram notes has not been disputed by any growers inside or
outside of the proposed viticultural area.
In support of the argument that the Northern Addition is a unique
area that is separate and viticulturally distinct from the proposed
Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area, comments 8 and 10 refer to recent
articles that recognize that the Fort Ross-Seaview and Annapolis areas
are separate grape-growing areas with different climates within the
larger Sonoma Coast region. For example, both comments quote an August
2, 2010 article by Eric Asimov, the chief wine critic for the New York
Times, that discusses the diversity within the large Sonoma Coast
viticultural area, stating that ``[e]ven along the narrow swath of land
close to the coast, numerous microclimates emerge, making vineyards
around Annapolis to the north very different from vineyards on the
ridges above Fort Ross in the appellation's western midsection, not to
mention those to the south near Freestone and Occidental'' (Eric
Asimov, ``The Evolution of Sonoma Coast Chardonnay,'' The New York
Times, August 2, 2010).
Comment 10 also quotes an April 27, 2011 article from the Santa
Rosa Press Democrat that similarly identifies the same ``three
particular coastal areas'' of the Sonoma Coast and distinguishes the
Annapolis area from the area to its immediate south (the location of
the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area) based on the
Annapolis area's lower elevation ridges and its location five to six
miles inland from the Pacific Ocean (Virginia Boone, ``Wine Way Out
West,'' Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 27, 2011).
In addition, comments 8 and 10 quote a 2009 article by the wine
editor of the San Francisco Chronicle that names Peay Vineyards as its
Winery of the Year and describes the cooler climate in the Annapolis
area as compared to the warmer vineyards to the south (within the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area), which are located closer
to the coast but above the inversion layer: ``Even by Sonoma Coast
standards, Peay occupies a chilly slice of the world. While vineyards
just to the south like Hirsch * * * or Flowers * * * may sit closer to
the coast, they're above the inversion layer. The site in Annapolis is
lower, between 600 and 800 feet, with colder temperatures'' (Jon Bonne,
``Winery of the Year: Peay
[[Page 77692]]
Vineyards,'' San Francisco Chronicle, December 27, 2009).
In another article about Peay that is quoted in comments 8 and 10,
Randy Caparoso of Sommelier Journal recounted Nick Peay's description
of the distinctiveness of the Annapolis area as contrasted to the Fort
Ross-Seaview area to the south:
Peay attributes the tightly wound characteristics of Annapolis
to the macroclimate, with temperatures typically ranging in the 60s
and 70s during the growing season--as frigid as it gets in the
entire county. As in Fort Ross-Seaview, days are moderated by the
ocean, only 4 miles away, and nights are never too cold. But unlike
Fort Ross-Seaview, he says, the lower-elevation growths near
Annapolis are influenced by ``unobstructed fog coming straight up
the river valley each day. We are in the inversion layer, not above
it'' (Randy Caparoso, ``Sonoma Extreme,'' Sommelier Journal, January
31, 2011, pp. 70-80) (emphasis in original).
According to comment 10, Greg LaFollette, a winemaker who has
worked with grape growers in various coastal Sonoma locations
(including Fort Ross-Seaview), is quoted in that same article as
stating that he ``always experienced much higher degree-day
accumulation [in Fort Ross-Seaview]''.
Comments 8 and 10 also cite the lack of evidence demonstrating that
the ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' name applies to the Northern Addition area as
an additional reason for establishing the petitioned-for viticultural
area as proposed in Notice No. 34. In comment 10, Patrick Shabram
refers to his earlier argument from the Shabram response that the names
``Fort Ross,'' ``Seaview,'' or ``Fort Ross-Seaview'' lack viticultural
significance in relation to the Northern Addition area, which is
instead known as the ``Annapolis area.'' Noting that he was unable to
find any reference to the Annapolis area as ``Fort Ross,'' Mr. Shabram
states that a number of recent news articles refer to the Northern
Addition area as ``Annapolis'' in conjunction with other sub-regions of
the west Sonoma Coast region, including Fort-Ross Seaview and
Freestone-Occidental, further underscoring his contention that the
``Fort Ross'' name is not used in conjunction with the proposed
Northern Addition.
TTB Analysis
TTB has carefully considered the comments received in response to
Notice Nos. 34 and 117 and has reviewed all petition evidence and
subsequent documentation received in support of, or in opposition to,
the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area, including all
comments and documentation relating to the proposed Northern Addition.
Name Evidence
The evidence submitted both by the Northern Commenters and by Mr.
Shabram raised significant questions regarding whether the ``Fort Ross-
Seaview'' name is applicable to the proposed Northern Addition.
Based on TTB's review of the evidence provided by the Northern
Commenters to support their assertion that the ``Fort Ross'' and ``Fort
Ross Region'' names are used in connection with the Northern Addition
area, it appears that this use of these names reflects very limited
historic name usage during the Russian occupation only (1812-41); the
evidence provided does not include more recent references to the area
by those names. Regarding the archaeology and ethnohistory study of the
Russian occupation of the Fort Ross area that the Northern Addition
petition cites for a historical perspective of the occupation's effect
on native populations, TTB notes that the study details the historic
boundaries of the occupation, but not the current boundary lines of the
Fort Ross geographical area.
By contrast, the evidence that was submitted in the Shabram
response and in comments 8 and 10 supports the original petitioners'
contention in response to the Northern Addition petition that local
growers as well as the wine press recognize the Fort Ross-Seaview area
as a separate and distinct area from the Annapolis area, and that the
``Fort Ross-Seaview'' geographical place name is commonly used by local
growers to identify only the grape-growing region in the immediate area
around Fort Ross and Seaview, but not the neighboring region to the
north.
Accordingly, TTB has determined that the name evidence provided in
the Northern Addition petition does not substantiate the Northern
Commenters' assertion that the ``Fort Ross-Seaview,'' ``Fort Ross,'' or
``Seaview'' names currently apply to the Northern Addition, including
the Annapolis area.
Boundary Line
As described in Notice No. 34, the Shabram-Hirsch petitioned-for
boundary line largely incorporates the hills and mountains located
along the Pacific coast near Fort Ross and Seaview in western Sonoma
County that are mostly above 900 feet, which generally marks the
separation between the higher, sunnier elevations of the proposed area
and the surrounding lower, foggier elevations.
TTB notes that the USGS maps show a clear distinction between the
Fort Ross-Seaview area and the Annapolis area to the north, with the
Wheatfield Fork of the Gualala River creating a natural separation of
the lower elevations of the Northern Addition from the steep, higher
elevation terrain of the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area.
TTB also notes that the northernmost vineyard in the proposed Fort
Ross-Seaview viticultural area is more than 3 miles from the closest
vineyard in the Northern Addition, as shown on an exhibit submitted by
the Northern Commenters. In contrast, as pointed out in the Shabram
response, all of the vineyards within the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area are located within an approximately 10 mile stretch,
with no vineyard more than 1.5 miles away from another vineyard.
In addition, the evidence and comments submitted in this case
demonstrate that there are two distinct geographical differences
between the two areas that affect the proposed boundary line and
suggest that they should be considered separate regions: (1) Distance
from the Pacific coastline; and (2) elevation. Most locations within
the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area are located only 0.5
to 2.5 miles from the Pacific coastline, whereas most locations within
the Northern Addition are located 4 to 6 miles from the coastline, as
shown on USGS maps. The elevation of the vineyards in the two areas is
also significantly different; vineyards in the Fort Ross-Seaview area
are generally located at elevations between 920 to 1,800 feet, which
are above the coastal fog according to local growers and the Shabram-
Hirsch petition, as compared to the lower 560- to 890-foot elevations
of vineyards in the Northern Addition, which are more influenced by the
marine fog.
Finally, TTB notes that the separate identities of the Fort Ross-
Seaview and the Northern Addition (or Annapolis) areas have been
recognized in recent newspaper articles and wine magazines. As noted
above, the Shabram response and comments 8 and 10 cite to multiple
articles that refer to the two regions as separate areas and describe
their different grape-growing conditions, which further highlights the
distinction between the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area
and the Annapolis area to the north.
TTB thus finds that the boundary line for the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area should not include the Annapolis area to the
north.
[[Page 77693]]
Distinguishing Features
In Notice No. 34, the climate, topography, and soils of the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area were identified as the
area's distinguishing features. In the Northern Addition petition, the
Northern Commenters contend that these same distinctive features are
shared by the Northern Addition area, thus warranting a modification of
the proposed boundary line to include the Northern Addition. More
specifically, the Northern Addition petition asserts that both the
proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and the Northern Addition
have a Coastal Cool climate and similar soil types, which is not
challenged in the Shabram response.
Based on the Shabram-Hirsch petition, the Northern Addition
petition, the Shabram response, and the public comments, TTB finds that
there are some similarities in the soil, topography, and growing season
climate of the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview viticultural area and the
Northern Addition. As discussed below, however, given that both areas
are wholly contained within two larger existing viticultural areas--the
North Coast and Sonoma Coast viticultural areas--some general
similarities in distinguishing features can be expected, especially in
regard to the regional climate because both the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area and the Northern Addition have a Coastal Cool
climate, which is a distinguishing feature of the surrounding Sonoma
Coast viticultural area according to T.D. ATF-253. In addition, as
noted in the Shabram response, an expansion of the proposed Fort Ross-
Seaview viticultural area based on the general grounds stated in the
Northern Addition petition could warrant the inclusion of other nearby
coastal areas with broadly similar features. Accordingly, the general
regional similarities described in the Northern Addition petition would
not necessarily preclude a finding that the microclimate and specific
topography of a particular area (such as the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area) are sufficiently distinct from those of the adjacent
areas as to warrant its recognition as a distinct viticultural area.
While conceding that there are some broad similarities in the
climate and topography between the proposed Fort Ross-Seaview
viticultural area and the Northern Addition, the Shabram-Hirsch
petition, the Shabram response, and the supporting comments also assert